This year the International Association of Transportation Regulators (IATR) landed in San Francisco, the ‘Belly of the Beast’ – as IATR-president Matt Daus put it. The heart of Uber-country and a state (California) which likes to experiment: with statewide app-licensing and GPS-meters for instance. Next year will be even better as Austin (Texas), which banned Uber earlier this year, will be the conference host. ‘How do we see the future as licensing authorities?’ – was the burning question at this, IATR’s 29^th annual meeting.

“Your Uber waits outside” beckoned the big posters at the airport. Welcome to San Francisco! Instead, I chose a taxi. The driver with a hood that completely covered his head, remained behind the wheel and made no effort to help. How do you mean – quality problems in the taxi industry?

His company –traditionally called DeSoto – had been renamed to the name of an app – Flywheel – and the cab painted app-red. The driver only spoke to explain how his integrated Flywheel terminal (communication centre, GPS meter, card reader, navigation and payment system – all in one) worked. “All you need in one box.” How did he see the taxi trade in San Francisco? “I give it a year before all taxi companies are bankrupt. Uber and Lyft have taken over everything.”

The most notable and impressive speech came from keynote speaker Patricia Gatling, a former New York City Commissioner for Human Rights and the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the governor of New York State. In her powerful presentation she reminded the audience of the need to offer everyone access to transport – without restrictions. Not just people with reduced mobility, but also those living in parts of the city which have no easy access to taxis, Ubers or other means of transport. And those who have no credit card. She insisted the whole transport sector must make its contribution to the protection of the environment, for all industry segments to be regulated in the proper way and warned against creating low-cost gig-type jobs like Uber and Lyft do.

An impressive argument for a level playing field and proper regulation of the entire transport system. Unfortunately -under pressure from Uber & Co’s well-funded lobbying machine more than half of the US states already opted for a looser regulation of apps – Transportation Network Companies (TNC’s) at state level. While states are not equipped for this task, taxis and (some) for hire cars (FHV) are still under strict local regulatory control.

What are the key elements for regulators these days? Safety is an important issue, with many cities opting for a ‘Vision Zero’ approach to road safety copied from Sweden. Add to that: better access for each form of transportation to each part of the city, more sustainable and more efficient forms of transport linking elements of taxi, FHV, TNC’s in new forms of public transport such as Bridj and Chariot. In cities like Boston, Kansas City and San Francisco these freely roaming app-controlled forms of microtransit provide the new public transport. MaaS – Mobility as a Service was hailed as a new and innovative subscription-based approach which should be regulated as a platform.

Or, as one speaker put it, “Being innovative is not good enough. Is the transport safe and meeting our requirements? And when we are looking at taxi regulation, what rules do we really need? Ideally taxis should support public transport. Unfortunately the taxi sector is very fragmented in San Francisco.” Still, San Francisco looked critically at its own taxi rules and concluded that there was a lot of ‘dead wood’ that could be cut. Fewer rules could well work in favour of the taxi sector, as examples from Seattle and Washington DC showed.

Professor Susan Shaheen has been following shared transportation for 20 years. She commented that “TNC’s are no ride-sharing, because they are paid trips. We have different terms we use and it’s high time to redefine them. The transport environment is changing rapidly, especially if we look at shared and connected cars. I would encourage people from the taxi sector to think about the future and the role that you can and want to play. The new mobility allows us to reorganize the city and make it more liveable and sustainable.” Taxis should be more widely shared where and when legally possible.

Both regulators and the taxi industry have a lot to think about. “Who are we as regulators? Do we have a code of ethics, for instance?” asked Tom Drischler, former Los Angeles regulator and stepping down as IATR vice-president. “Where are we going as regulators? Often our regulations are too strict and don’t apply to all forms of transport equally.” Speaking for the taxi sector Blair Davies (Australian Taxi Industry Association-ATIA) said “we have to think ‘outside the box’. Ask ourselves questions about some of our industry’s rules and practices”

That was exactly what Dwight Kines (Transdev), representing the Taxicab Limousine and Paratransit Association (TLPA), meant when he said his taxi members were busily working on a new business model that sometimes copies TNC-behaviour. Why not add TNC-drivers to the fleet at busy times under the company’s own app? And provide a better taxi quality, have a more competitive pricing structure, better marketing and cheaper dispatching?”

Two super-interesting sessions unfortunately ran parallel: the regulation of TNC’s at airports and the use of GPS meters – basically apps which compute the fare on the basis of GPS-coordinates. Major US airports have already embraced Uber & Co as source of extra income from fees and created space for them.

On the ‘meter-front’ the American metrology people are closely following the Flywheel-experiment using its GPS-terminal as a meter.

The quest for the Universal app – an app that works for different types of transport and gives the user different choices – was the last agenda item. But before that local licensing authorities had the chance to give a glimpse into their local cuisine.

Kate Toran had gone through her taxi regulations in San Francisco and wondered aloud why we regulate transport. Answer: because of security, accessibility, durability, good customer service and to correct an imperfect market. Tracey Cook (Toronto) described the tumultuous way her city had finally decided to regulate TNC’s despite furious objections from the taxi sector. Helen Chapman described the latest measures of Transport for London taken at the instigation of Sadiq Khan, the new taxi-friendly mayor of London: language tests for rental car (Uber-)drivers, card and contactless payment terminals in taxis (this autumn), changing the famous Knowledge into an official and formal education, more taxi ranks in the city and later – from 2020 – the greenest taxis in the world when the heart of London becomes an Ultra Low Emission Zone. There is about 65 million pound (€ 72 million) available to help the taxi trade switch over smoothly.

Singapore’s Jenny Teo said the rise of TNC’s had been beneficial for commuters who failed getting a cab during the rush hours. With its seven taxi companies and 28,000 taxis, the city-state is already well served with taxis. Next year, all PHV must be officially licensed and follow strict rules. Teo ended by saying “I’m trying very hard to make the taxis and TNC’s work together harmoniously. (Laughs). Wish me luck.”

Back to the airport, I take a taxi – what else? This driver was the exact mirror image of the one who picked me up on arrival: friendly, interested, informative. Of course, we talked about Uber & Co: “Yeah, they’re killing the industry. From the airport you would have paid 30 dollars with Uber. With me it’s about 42. But not everyone finds apps and private drivers equally charming.” (Wim Faber)

• IATR’s Annual: this year in San Francisco – the birthplace of Uber – next year Auston, where Uber was banned. Symbolic?

Nearly 40 trade unionists from 19 countries representing almost every continent presented their country’s Uber-experiences and explored a common approach as International Transport Worker’s Federation (ITF). The IRU (presenting its UpTop activities) and a member from the European Parliament joined the meeting.

On September 20 and 21 ITF held its Second Uber Strategy Meeting, this time in Antwerp. Host Frank Moreels, president of BTB Belgium and vice-chair of ITF’s road transport section, opened the meeting by saying that “Uber and other app-based models promote themselves to passengers as innovative, but are based on deregulation, destabilisation, disrespect for workers, ignoring legislation, not paying taxes or contributing to social security.”

“Uber acts like a ‘hidden’ employer”, he added. “Communicating with clients and workers by mail, by text. Uber drivers are hired and fired by e-mail, contracts are signed electronically.” But at the same time Moreels didn’t spare the taxi trade: “Traditional taxi operators need to up their own game in terms of respecting their drivers and innovating to meet passengers’ expectations, if they are to meet the challenges of the Uber business model.”

The meeting, hosted jointly by ITF Belgian affiliates BTB and ACV Transcom, examined how Uber Technologies and other taxi/courier app firms like Lyft and Gett are increasing their market share in many countries. The companies promote themselves purely as electronic marketplaces that connect customers and drivers using mobile apps, often illegally, in conflict with existing taxi service regulations.

Each union representative presented an update of Uber’s and union-activities in their respective countries. An inspiring mix. Some unions seemed to be at the beginning of the ‘Uber-road’, others had experienced Uber and similar apps for longer. Participants shared their experiences of wins against Uber in cities like Austin, Texas (USA); Brussels, Buenos Aires and Copenhagen. Although they differed on the most efficient way to fight the apps, they all agreed that Uber could influence politicians to find other ways to re-enter cities it had been banned in.

Every union had initially started its campaign with demonstrations using taxis blocking the roads in order to make the public aware of the dangers of Uber and the unfair competition to the taxi trade. Most found these actions quickly backfired and lost them the goodwill of the public, stuck in long traffic jams. Most unions also found that these demos were hijacked by their opponent, drawing attention to the ‘unreliable cabbies.’

Unions have since built national coalitions with other partners in the transport sector, started lobbying politicians and used the courts to sue Uber & Co together with groups of drivers. Both sides can influence politicians, despite the fact that the ‘app-people’ have much deeper pockets to finance armies of lobbyists.

Danish union 3F followed a very different approach. They created Poul Uberman, when they found it was difficult to explain to the Danish public what could possibly be wrong with a tech-savvy company which supplies them with friendly drivers, cheap and quick rides and perhaps even with a bottle of water….

“No, Uber, it’s not just an app” is the slogan on the website www.uberman.dk and the YouTube-commercials. Why? “Uber is damaging Danish welfare”, claims 3F.

For instance, the site features a video in which fictitious Uber user Poul Uberman – a Danish comedian – visits his elderly mother in a residential home, enthusiastic about how he came by Uber, taking advantage of its cheap prices whilst moaning about the poor conditions in his mother’s home. “You see, it’s not a Danish company. They’re in a tax haven. The drivers put the money straight in their pockets, so it’s half price!” explains Uberman enthusiastically. The video also gives some insight into Uber’s business and tax practices: unregulated vehicles, drivers without proper security checks, tax-evasion.

Since May, when the series of videos started, Uberman has become a cult figure, generating a lot of discussion on social media. “Poul Uberman is someone who thinks it’s very smart to save lots of money by using Uber, but he doesn’t understand why there’s not enough money for his mother to eat decent food or take a bath every day,” Jan Villadsen, chairperson for 3F transport, told Danish TV2. “Just because you have a smart concept, a smart name and a smart app, it doesn’t mean that you are smart, good and fair to everybody in Danish society,” Villadsen said.

Meanwhile, Bhairavi Desai from the New York Taxi Workers’ Alliance commented that it was vital to win the trust of TNC and taxi workers alike to develop union campaigns. “Unions need to share global strategies based on universal principles to protect workers against the predatory ‘Ubernomics’ business model, which is destroying full time work and replacing it with ‘sub-minimum poverty gigs’.

But with autonomous vehicles looming at the horizon, the transport workers union are certainly in a pickle: what will remain of their member base. Who will be left working in the taxi industry? Or driving a bus? What will happen with these jobs?

Concluding the meeting, ITF road transport section vice-chair Frank Moreels said: “Unions are certainly not against computer technology in the taxi sector. What we are against is these companies undermining public safety and the jobs of real, regulated taxi drivers by bypassing regulations and refusing liability in the case of accidents. That is why unions across the globe have come together and agreed some common steps to take.”

Around 700 unions, representing more than 4.5 million transport workers from 150 countries, are members of the International Transport Workers’ Federation. Every part of the world is represented by the ITF and taxi drivers throughout the world have a say in the ITF. Uber is present in more than 205 cities in 45 countries across six continents. (Wim Faber)

• Nearly 40 trade unionists from 19 countries presented their country’s Uber-experiences and explored a common approach as International Transport Worker’s Federation (ITF).

A new report states that 60 percent of all vehicles on the road might be electric by 2030. In that year, electric vehicles may account for two-thirds of all cars on the road in cities in developed countries, this recently released report says. The increase in EVs can be pinned to lower technological costs, consumer interest in ride-sharing, and tighter regulations on emissions, according to the report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) and McKinsey & Co, seeks to produce a vision of what urban mobility will look like in 15 years. “The individual traveler is at the heart of this evolution, so consumers will need to be open to adopting new technologies and services,” the report says. “However, both the public and private sectors will have roles to play in paving the way.”

In an effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions, governments around the world are attempting to introduce EVs through subsidies and tax breaks, while at the same time creating low-emission zones. The report also notes that technology costs surrounding EVs are falling drastically: the price of a lithium-ion battery pack dropped 65 percent from 2010 to 2015, and they are expected to drop further to below $100 per kilowatt in the next ten years.

“In the near term, it is likeliest to emerge in densely populated, high-income cities such as Chicago, Hong Kong, London, and Singapore,” the report says. “EVs become far more common, spurred by economics, consumer interest, incentives, and the creation of low-emission zones.”

The report notes that EVs are a “direct threat” to vehicles that run on fossil fuels. “The automotive sector faces a future that could be fundamentally different from its past and may need to consider moving from using a pure product-ownership model toward providing a range of transportation services,” it says, adding that gasoline retailers should be considering how to monetize current assets, while at the same time considering how to get future value from electric charging, as well as fleet services.

Read the report: https://about.bnef.com/white-papers/integrated-perspective-future-mobility/

• Electric vehicles standard by 2030?