Is this an appropriate alternative for Alberta communities? Perhaps a visit to Innisfil, Ontario and Uber experiences there will be helpful for decision makers in Alberta. Let's start by looking at cost.

In transit, it is the last mile of the rider's journey that is the most challenging for which to plan. Located about an hour north of Toronto, Innisfil, with a population of 35,000 plus, became the first town in Canada to partner with Uber as an alternative to public transit on May 15, 2017. The town saw conventional transit as being too costly, especially in terms of capital purchases towards a new fleet. So the town set aside $100,000 for 2017 and $125,000 for 2018 to be used toward an Uber transit model that does not require a bus fleet. Instead of subsidizing a bus service that operates even if no one is on board, Innisfil subsidizes their residents on a per-trip basis. This is how costs for the expanded ridesharing partnership looked in March 2018.

Uber Technologies receives a 15 percent to 25 percent portion of the total and these funds do not necessarily remain within the local economy. The drivers are also not paid a fixed income but a wage based on rider use and often drivers earn less than a living wage if you factor in the actual costs of owning a vehicle. Compared to a conventional bus driver, there is much less job security as working is based on usage. The drivers are also required to be a certain age meaning that not everyone qualifies to work for Uber. As well, the driver is responsible for the cost of fuel, maintenance, and higher insurance premiums since insurance companies view vehicles used for Uber as being of greater risk. Drivers do not often factor into the equation the  costs to operate a vehicle which is estimated at $8,500 a year in Canada (CAA figure).

 

The main benefit of the Uber partnership is offering a subsidized transit service that increases in cost only with greater use. Innisfil's system does not operate like a typical Uber service and more like a fixed-route transit service. Patrons are asked to wait at designated areas, because in order to have affordable service, the routes need to be as direct as possible. This is because transit becomes inefficient in terms of cost and scheduling when accommodations are made to meet individual needs which are estimated at $8,500 a year in Canada (CAA figure). 

Because drivers operate on a variable schedule, it is difficult to know the Town's contingency plan when there are not enough drivers available to operate the service. 

In terms of efficiency and the environment, cars take up more space than a transit vehicle on our roads. Buses also reduce the carbon footprint of transporting people if the buses get used appropriately. Fewer vehicles also equates to less wear and tear of road infrastructure. And while road infrastructure is important, it is a piece of the overall transportation infrastructure that is more heavily subsidized than transit and typically comes with little or no cost recovery. This is an issue of significance to Alberta and Albertans at this time.

In summary

The Innisfil story shows that the Uber partnership can work well in areas of low population density, although it is still too early to know if there is a tendency for towns like Innisfil to underestimate the long-term economic costs. However, the human benefits cannot be overlooked.

A conventional fixed-route transit system may turn out to be the better long-term transportation solution. Time and study will tell. 

Will Uber or Uber-like systems bring value to a local economy and community? Additionally, transit on average in the Edmonton Region is about $3 per ride, far less than the Innisifil-Uber rates.