Here is the link for the article :
https://newsroom.uber.com/toronto/uberwav/

 

Yes, I noticed it the other day when I was checking out my rider's app to see vehicles around me.

I thought the price is the usual price of a accessible taxi. Great for consumers if it's cheaper!

 

Oh actually it says :
"
AND THE BEST PART? UBERWAV IS NOW PRICED THE SAME AS UBERX - ABOUT 40% CHEAPER THAN TRADITIONAL TAXIS AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXIS! "

not the Uberx fare ! ( My bad )

 

I think Uber is preparing for potential TTL compliance ... http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha.../news/city_hall/2014/02/19/council_votes_to_overhaul_toronto_taxi_industry.html

 

UberWav isn't new... seems to simply be a reduction in pricing to avoid the appearance of charging thhe handicapped more. Maybe a simple empty gesture to try and appease city staff, fully knowing that you can't pay for one of those cars on UberX prices.

 

Uber mentioned that it is new and as of Jan/7th 1pm !

"January 7, 2016 Posted by Ian Black

Today, we're launching the new and improved uberWAV in Toronto at 1pm. uberWAV is our wheelchair accessible vehicle option, connecting riders with paratransit drivers in vehicles that are equipped with hydraulic ramps or lifts."

 

Hahaha so much for the cabby talking point that Uber isn't accessible. One by one their arguments fall... I love it.

 

Not really. Unless Uber is going to take steps to get these vehicles on their platform and driving, then lowering of the rates is really an empty gesture.

 

Not sure how you make money driving these vans for uberx prices. Can't be sustainable, unless uber takes less commission from these fares. What happens if a customer orders a uberwav because they want to transport 5 people and uberxl is surging?

 

So cabbies attack UberX over accesibility while Uber has an accessible service. Either way it's BS.

 

Yes, they atttack UberX over accessibility, because they're operating non-wheelchair accessible cabs, while all new cab licenses stipulate a wheelchair accessible vehicle, in addition to conversion of existing licenses anytime somebody wants to trade/sell one.

 

So they're complaining about Uber skirting regulations. Back to square one. We all know Uber's skirting regulation anyway. Redundant much?

 

So they're complaining about Uber skirting regulations. Back to square one. We all know Uber's skirting regulation anyway. Redundant much?

Yeah they are... And one of the regulations they're skirting (that most common folks appreciate) is the need to have accessible vehicles.

 

Only on UberX vehicles. What kind of person knows that Uber offers WAV and then requests and X anyway? What a nonsensical complaint, not grounded in reason. And if most common people agreed with the regulations, there wouldn't be such overwhelming support for Uber in this city and they would have been shut down long ago. So I can't agree that most agree with cab regulations. Sorry.

 

I think you're intentionally ignoring the problem here. Obviously, nobody who needs an accessible vehicle orders an UberX. They are instead forced to wait an amount of time that is likely to be substantially longer to get a Wav vehicle. From a drivers perspective, why on earth would you invest in running one of these costly vehicles to serve a very small proportion of the potential customers, when being forced to do it at the same rate as people driving Mazda 3s and Toyota Corollas.

If it doesn't make sense for a driver, those vehicles won't be on the road.

The general population doesn't agree with some of thregulations in the industry. The mandate for all vehicles to become wheelchair accessible is something that the general population can agree with.

 

Running larger gas guzzling vehicles for the benefit of a small few (who simply need to wait a few extra minutes for a WAV) makes no sense and while it's a feel good move on the "equality" side, it is a poor move from an environmental perspective. A minivan has roughly twice the emissions of a small fuel efficient car. Hard to meet climate targets with that kind of mentality.

 

Yeah, the whole "they can wait a few extra minutes" just doesn't fly in the year 2016... Just like the "they can pay a few extra dollars" doesn't, which is what likely prompted this change.

 

If the response time for WAV is the same or faster than a Beck then what's the problem. (ha, I'm sure you'll think of something though!)

 

Beck's (along with every other taxi brokerage) response time for an accessible vehicle isn't acceptable.

That's why there is a regulated transition to 100 percent accessible vehicles. The only thing that's acceptable is for it to be the same.

 

I think you're intentionally ignoring the problem here. Obviously, nobody who needs an accessible vehicle orders an UberX. They are instead forced to wait an amount of time that is likely to be substantially longer to get a Wav vehicle. From a drivers perspective, why on earth would you invest in running one of these costly vehicles to serve a very small proportion of the potential customers, when being forced to do it at the same rate as people driving Mazda 3s and Toyota Corollas.

If it doesn't make sense for a driver, those vehicles won't be on the road.

The general population doesn't agree with some of thregulations in the industry. The mandate for all vehicles to become wheelchair accessible is something that the general population can agree with.

Nonsense I don't think the general public really cares, to be honest. There will always be a market and there will always be someone there to fill that void. Perhaps it takes longer to get a ride, that's because there aren't as many cars on the road, and rightfully so. I feel for disabled people, BUT that being said, why should EVERY car and driver be forced to go through the costly expense of becoming accessible for such a small percentage of the population. It is uncessary and overreach by government. I have ZERO problems with a company skirting regulations if they're burdensome, illogical and wrong.

"Uber is bad because they don't follow government regulations" is a terrible argument. Blindly following government is a dangerous practice. I'd advise you to stop being a sheep.

 

The general public may not lobby for every taxi to be wheelchair accessible, but if the general public were to be asked, should taxis be wheelchair accessible, the overwhelming answer would be yes.

By your logic, no business should need to become wheelchair accessiblej, unless it actually serves their needs. That's not how the world works in 2016. Heck, if we focus in on the whole Wav thing... The assumption that 'the disabled will just have to wait a bit longer' is actually quite flawed. Based on this forum, it seems that the general rule of thumb is that if the pax is more than 5 mins away, not worth it at UberX rates. If that's the case, it's certainly not worth it to drive a big vehicle for that same rate.

Uber isn't ignoring regulations because they're burdensome, illogical, or wrong. They're ignoring the regulations because those regulations don't serve their interests. Part of being a citizen, or heck, even visitor to a place, is accepting the fact that there are laws, which means you don't get to do whatever the heck you want.