Taxi Fares and Tariffs Review 2016 - Transport for London · on the supply and demand of London...

07/12/2016

Reference number 104103

TAXI FARES AND TARIFF REVIEW 2016 Final Report for TfL

© SYSTRA Ltd 2016 The contents of this report remain the intellectual property of SYSTRA Ltd.

TAXI FARES AND TARIFF REVIEW

IDENTIFICATION TABLE

Client/Project owner Transport for London

Project Taxi Fares and Tariff Review

Type of document Final Report

Date 07/12/2016

Reference number 104103

Number of pages 96

Version Name Date Modifications

1

Author

Paul Le Masurier Jeremy Toner Evelyn Robertson Sophie Murphy

30/09/2016

Reviewed by Dave Carter Toby Cuthbertson

30/09/2016

2

Author Paul Le Masurier Sophie Murphy

25/10/2016

Reviewed by Dave Carter Evelyn Robertson

26/10/2016

3 Author Sophie Murphy 29/11/2016

Reviewed by Paul Le Masurier 1/12/2016

Taxi Fares and Tariff Review 104103

Final Report 07/12/2016 /96

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 7

1.1 THIS REPORT 7

1.2 CONTEXT TO STUDY 7

1.3 DATA OBTAINED 8 2. DEMAND-SIDE PERSPECTIVE 9

2.1 INTRODUCTION 9

2.2 SCALE AND NATURE OF (UNMET) DEMAND 9

2.3 NATURE OF DEMAND 11

2.4 OTHER PROFILE CHARACTERISTICS OF TAXI HIRINGS 13

2.5 DEMAND ELASTICITIES 16

2.6 TAXI PASSENGER PROFILE 17 3. SUPPLY-SIDE PERSPECTIVE 18

3.1 INTRODUCTION 18

3.2 PROFILE OF TAXI DRIVERS AND SHIFT PATTERNS 18

3.3 EXTENT AND NATURE OF SUPPLY 19

3.4 LEVEL OF NON-HIRED TIME 27

3.5 DRIVER REVENUE AND SENSITIVITY TO CHANGE IN REVENUE PER HOUR 29

3.6 DRIVERS’ VIEWS ON TAXI FARES AND TARIFFS 33 4. HEATHROW MARKET 36

4.1 INTRODUCTION 36

4.2 HEATHROW PASSENGERS’ VIEWS AND PROFILE 36

4.3 SUPPLY AT HEATHROW 42 5. DEMAND AND SUPPLY MODELLING 46

5.1 INTRODUCTION 46

5.2 MODELLED SCENARIOS AND RESULTS 46 6. CONSULTATION ON CARD PAYMENT DEVICES 51

6.1 INTRODUCTION 51

6.2 CARD PAYMENT COMPANIES 51

6.3 TAXIMETER COMPANIES 53

6.4 ATTITUDES TOWARDS DIRECT LINKAGE BETWEEN CARD PAYMENT DEVICE & METER 53

6.5 FEASIBILITY OF LINKAGE 55

6.6 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 56



7. VIEWS OF STAKEHOLDERS 58

7.1 INTRODUCTION 58

7.2 STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON CURRENT INDUSTRY TRENDS 58

7.3 STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON CURRENT TARIFFS 62

7.4 STAKEHOLDER IDEAS FOR CHANGES TO TARIFFS 64

7.5 STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON THE ANNUAL UPLIFT BASED ON THE COST INDEX 68

7.6 STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON CARD PAYMENT DEVICES 70

7.7 ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 73 8. REVIEW OF THE COST INDEX MODEL 74

8.1 INTRODUCTION 74

8.2 A REVIEW OF THE METHOD 74

8.3 COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLACES AND TIMES 78

8.4 INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE INDEX – ASSESSMENT AND COMMENTARY 81

8.5 APPLYING THE COST INDEX TO DIFFERENT TARIFFS 85

8.6 SHOULD THE AGREED ANNUAL UPLIFT ALWAYS APPLY TO FIXED AND VARIABLE ASPECTS? 86

8.7 SUMMARY 87 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89

9.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS IN RELATION TO POSSIBLE TARIFF CHANGE 89

9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 90

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. London Zones 10 Figure 2. Age and Gender 17 Figure 3. Average Number of hirings per driver by Time of Day 23 Figure 4. Fare band 25 Figure 5. Distance band 26 Figure 6. Revenue by hour 29

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Reported total trips in the past month 9 Table 2. Taxi trips ‘not taken’ 9 Table 3. Taxi trips ‘not taken’ (too expensive) as a % of Total Hirings 10 Table 4. Taxi trips ‘not taken’ (no taxi available) as a % of Total Hirings 10 Table 5. Wait Time by Time of Day: Taxis 12



Table 6. Origin and Tariff 13 Table 7. Wait Time 13 Table 8. Fare 14 Table 9. Journey Time 14 Table 10. Reason for choosing taxi [multiple choice] 15 Table 11. Method of hire: Taxi 15 Table 12. Purpose: Most recent taxi trip 15 Table 13. Fares and Wait Time Elasticities of Demand 16 Table 14. Passenger Residency 17 Table 15. Number of Licenced Taxi Drivers by Type of Licence 19 Table 16. Spatial distribution of trips* 19 Table 17. Driver operating hours – all drivers* 20 Table 18. Reasons drivers work their chosen hours 21 Table 19. Driver operating hours – by licence type 21 Table 20. Total Hirings – All Drivers 22 Table 21. Total Hirings - licence type 23 Table 22. Trips by Tariff Period 24 Table 23. Method of Hiring 24 Table 24. Payment 24 Table 25. Fares by Tariff Period 25 Table 26. Pick-up / Set-down Zones 25 Table 27. Journey Purpose 26 Table 28. Percentage of non-hired time, by hour 27 Table 29. Non-hired time – Licence type 28 Table 30. Would you change your schedule if this new tariff structure was in place? 30 Table 31. Sensitivity of Supply to a +25% Increase in Revenues in Tariff Periods 2 & 3 30 Table 32. Would you change your schedule if this new tariff structure was in place? 30 Table 33. Sensitivity of Supply to a +40% Increase in Tariff Period 2 Revenues 31 Table 34. Would you change your schedule if this new tariff structure was in place? 31 Table 35. Sensitivity of Supply to a +25% Increase in Tariff Period 1 Revenues 32 Table 36. Do you get revenue from advertising on your taxi?* 32 Table 37. Advertising revenue compared with revenue from fares:* 32 Table 38. Which radio circuits do you work with (multiple choice)? 33 Table 39. Which apps do you work with (multiple choice)? 33 Table 40. Should the current tariff system (both rates and times at which they apply) remain in its present form or change? 33 Table 41. Which aspects of the tariff system would you like to see changed (multiple choice)? 34 Table 42. To what extent would you support or oppose a TfL proposal to introduce a fixed fare from Heathrow to central London? 35 Table 43. Do you think that the tariff for journeys of over 6 miles should…? 35 Table 44. Do you think that the minimum fare of £2.60 should...? 35 Table 45. Residency – Snapshot Survey 36 Table 46. Journey Purpose - Snapshot Survey 37 Table 47. Number of Bags - Snapshot Survey 37 Table 48. Reported Wait Time – Full Survey 37 Table 49. Estimate Journey Cost - Snapshot Survey 37 Table 50. Reported Journey Cost – Full Survey 38 Table 51. Estimated Journey Time – Snapshot Survey 38 Table 52. Reported Journey Time – Full Survey 38 Table 53. Reason for choosing taxi (multiple choice) 39



Table 56. Sensitivity to Fare 40 Table 66. Heathrow Trip Profile (based on Diary Trip Logs) 43 Table 67. Total typical hours worked per week 43 Table 68. Reasons Heathrow drivers work their chosen hours 44 Table 69. Would you change your schedule if these new tariff structure was in place? 44 Table 70. Would you support fixed fares to prevent the risk of passengers being charged a very high fare? 44 Table 71. Would you support a capped fare to prevent the risk of passengers being charged a very high fare? 45 Table 72. Support and opposition to card machines being linked to taximeters 45 Total % 45 Table 73. Card Payment Providers and Linkage to Taximeters 52 Table 74. Taximeter Companies and Models in Use 53 Table 75. Consultation Summary 58 Table 76. Index Components 76 Table 77. Weights in selected cost indexes 78 Table 78. Fixed, Variable & Labour Weights 79 Table 79. Comparison of Non-Labour Costs 80 Table 80. Standardising Cost Categories 81 Table 81. Sources of Index Information 87



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Report

1.1.1 This report is intended to inform TfL’s review and consultation on the existing taxi tariff structure and rates that is the basis for all taxi fares in London; and the Cost Index model that is used to determine annual fare uplifts to reflect yearly changes in supply costs. Through this study, SYSTRA has sought to obtain independent and insightful information on the supply and demand of London taxis, and any indications of mismatch, to inform TfL’s final determination of taxi tariffs for 2017 and beyond.

1.2 Context to Study

1.2.1 The Taxi and Private Hire (TPH) section of TfL is responsible for the licensing and regulation of taxi (black cab) and private hire services in London. This includes the licensing of taxi drivers and vehicles, and private hire operators, drivers and vehicles.

1.2.2 Taxi fares in London are regulated by TfL, and fares and tariffs are usually reviewed annually; consultation takes place each Autumn, with board approval in February and implementation soon after. The 2016/17 tariff rates and times are as follows.

Minimum fare = £2.60 (at all times); Tariff Period 1 (Mon to Fri 0500-2000): £2.60 per mile (or £0.45 per minute) up to

6 miles; Tariff Period 2 (Mon to Fri 2000-2200, Saturday and Sunday 05;00-22:00): £3.20

per mile (or £0.55 per minute) up to 6 miles; Tariff Period 3 (Every night 22:00-05:00, public holidays): £3.96 per mile (or £0.68

per minute) up to 6 miles; and Tariff rate for journeys over 6 miles: £3.70 per mile (or £0.64 per minute).

1.2.3 The fare rate switches to being time-based when the speed of the taxi drops to 10.4 miles per hour. There are additional fixed premiums for hirings that start at Heathrow Airport, phone and online bookings, and over the festive period.

1.2.4 Annual fare alterations are calculated using a Cost Index model. This comprises a function of supply-side components, and any changes in year-to-year costs are the basis for an annual inflationary uplift of the taxi rate applied across the board.

1.2.5 In 2016, a number of changes regarding fare payments via card come into force. In April, the new fare structure removed the card payment surcharge , and increased the minimum fare to compensate.

1.2.6 In addition to this, the TfL Board instructed TfL to carry out a full review of taxi fares and tariffs by early 2017. As well as this, TfL want to explore the issues surrounding the linkages between card payment devices and taximeters. As such, TfL has commissioned SYSTRA to look into the following questions:

Are taxi fares at the correct level; or too expensive, or too cheap? How sensitive is demand to changes in fare (and wait time); and does this differ

by time of day, or area of London when/where other alternatives are more/less available?



Whether fares should continue to be based on distance and time? Are drivers’ willing to work at different times; and how would a fares change (and

the resultant effect on changes in time running empty) affect their decision and working patterns?

What are the revenue and patronage implications of different tariffs? How should the tariff rate vary by time of day/night, and day of week (and,

possibly, by central/outer London) – to maximise revenue, or patronage, or supply?

Is the current Cost Index a useful guide for reviewing taxi fares; and are its elements and formula the most suitable?

Should additional arrangements for taxi journeys to and from Heathrow Airport be introduced?

1.2.7 To provide light on these questions it was agreed that a series of primary data collection exercises would be conducted with taxi passengers and potential passengers, and taxi drivers; plus consult with taxi trade and passenger stakeholders. A summary of the data gathering exercise is given below, and are documented as technical appendices.

1.3 Data Obtained

1.3.1 The surveys carried out as part of this project were as follows:

a survey of London travellers recruited via an online panel that cost-effectively reached a broad representation of London travellers, including those who use London transport and live outside London;

a survey of London taxi drivers recruited via TfL’s database of driver contacts, and conducted as a self-complete electronic questionnaire interview;

a survey of taxi passengers at Heathrow, recruited as they wait for a taxi at each of the Terminals; and

a survey of Heathrow taxi drivers conducted as a face-to-face interview by project team members with drivers as they waited in the holding-bay at the airport.

1.3.2 All surveys were undertaken from mid-August to mid October 2016.

1.3.3 We have also undertaken a comprehensive exercise to consult with all main stakeholders, including representatives of the trade associations; taxi companies; individual taxi drivers; passenger groups and individual passengers (through the above surveys); taximeter and card payment manufacturers; and equipment suppliers.

1.3.4 Finally, we have collated secondary data to conduct a comparative review of the London taxi Cost Index model with those of comparable cities around the world.

1.3.5 Our findings are reported in subsequent chapters of this report. Our final chapter presents our conclusions and recommendations.



2. DEMAND-SIDE PERSPECTIVE

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 A total of 1563 interviews were obtained with London travellers (i.e. people who had travelled within London, including by foot, in the past six months). Across the sample, the number of reported taxi (referenced as “black cabs” to the public) is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Reported total trips in the past month

Taxi

Trips per month 2502

No. of respondents 1563

Average monthly trips / traveller 1.6

2.1.2 The results reported in this chapter are derived from analyses of these taxi hirings reported by this sample of London travellers. The questionnaire used can be found in Appendix A.

2.2 Scale and Nature of (UnMet) Demand

2.2.1 Respondents were asked about journeys made in the last month where they would have preferred to have taken a taxi, but instead used an alternative mode of transport. Any non-taxi trips where the traveller would, in principle, have preferred to travel by taxi was in scope so this section explores the maximum potential demand that exists.

2.2.2 Forty-two percent of respondents said that there was at least one occasion in the past month when they would have preferred to have taken a taxi but did not. Respondents were then asked for the reason that they did not take a taxi. In terms of analysis of demand, this allows us to assess ‘potential’ taxi trips if the barrier of cost or availability, in particular, were removed. Table 2 shows the extent of potential unmet demand – amounting to one-third (34%) of existing demand could be realised if fares were reduced to an ‘acceptable’ level according to potential passengers; and an additional 14% of hirings if there were sufficiently more taxis at the times and places when/where travellers need them.

Table 2. Taxi trips ‘not taken’

Potential taxi trips ‘not taken’ % Potential Unmet Demand

Too expensive 850 34%

None available 327 14%



2.2.3 Tables 3 and 4 explores this further by looking at the spatial distribution of ‘unmet’ demand (categorised as per Figure 1). Unmet taxi demand is mostly likely to occur in Central London (Zones 1-5). Unmet demand due to cost was more likely in Tariff Period 1, whereas unmet demand due to supply was just as likely across all Tariff periods. One in ten of the ‘trips not taken’ due to expense were ‘long distance’ (cross-zone trips).

Figure 1. London Zones1

Table 3. Taxi trips ‘not taken’ (too expensive) as a % of Total Hirings

Tariff 1 Tariff 2 Tariff 3 Total

Central 9% 2% 5% 16%

Inner 4% 2% 3% 9% Outer 6% 2% 1% 9% Total 19% 6% 9% 34%

Table 4. Taxi trips ‘not taken’ (no taxi available) as a % of Total Hirings

Tariff 1 Tariff 2 Tariff 3 Total

Central 2% 3% 2% 7%

Inner 1% 1% 2% 4% Outer 2% 1% 1% 4%

Total 5% 4% 5% 14%

1Zone are defined using LTS. Central Zones 1-5 broadly match the old Central Statistical Area (C, includes all of City, and part of Westminster, Camden, Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Lambeth and Kensington) and include all Central London mainline termini. Inner (I) includes the rest of those boroughs partly in C plus other complete Inner London Boroughs (Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hammersmith, Newham, Haringey). The outer annulus is “Outer” (O) and includes all the remaining Outer London Boroughs plus parts of Kent, Surrey, Herts, Essex and Bucks outside the GLA but within the M25.



2.2.4 In isolation of any other information, the above results also suggest that demand would be most responsive to:

a reduction in Tariff 1 (more than half of all potential taxi trips currently not being realised due to fares being too high, according to potential travellers); and

an increase in taxi availability in Tariff Period 2 (73% of potential taxi trips lost through lack of availability are in the Tariff Period 2).

2.2.5 However, we estimate that the majority of would-be passengers (three in every four) who indicated that fare was a barrier to taxi use do not use taxis for business (so must pay the fare themselves) nor have a high income so we suspect a realistic (i.e. modest) fare reduction would not be sufficient to realise this potential.

2.2.6 In circumstances where the traveller would have preferred to use a taxi but did not, the most commonly used modes were: bus (39%), underground/DLR/tram (27%), car (24%), minicab (17%), train (14%), or walking (12%). Five per cent chose other modes, including motorbike or bicycle. Supressed Taxi Trips

2.2.7 Respondents were also asked if there were any occasions when they would have liked to have used a taxi, but instead did not make the journey at all. One in ten London travellers (10%) reported that this had happened in the past month, amounting to 148 taxi journeys across our sample (the equivalent of 6% of actual hirings). The main reasons for not making the journey by taxi was the cost (45%), or ‘like to know / agree fare in advance’ (22%), or lack of availability (22%).

2.3 Nature of Demand

2.3.1 Here we report how the market is working currently from the perspective of the passenger, as stated by respondents to our London Traveller Survey.

Wait Times

2.3.2 Analysing wait times gives an indication of mis-match between supply and demand. Table 5 below shows average wait time for a fare by hours across the sample of taxi trips given by the respondents. Excluding one outlier observation, average hourly wait times varied between 1 minute and 20 minutes; with a mean wait time of 5 minutes, a mode wait time of 2 minutes and a median wait time of 4 minutes. Passenger wait time appears to increase towards the weekends, peaking on Saturdays; and during the morning peak. This indicates a possible shortfall in supply through a typical Saturday and around the morning peak on Thursdays and Fridays.



Table 5. Wait Time by Time of Day: Taxis



2.4 Other Profile Characteristics of Taxi Hirings

2.4.1 This section gives an overview of the types of trips taken by taxi.

2.4.2 As shown in Table 6, the greatest individual share of trips, 34%, are made in Tariff Period 1 and originate in Central London; with relatively high proportions of trips originating in Central London in Tariff Periods 2 or 3. Few trips (<30% of the total) originated in Inner or Outer London.

Table 6. Origin and Tariff

Taxis

Tariff 1 Tariff 2 Tariff 3

Central 34% 14% 22%

Inner 12% 3% 5%

Outer 6% 2% 3%

2.4.3 Further investigation of the users of taxis for short journeys (< 20 minutes) during Tariff Period 1 suggest that they would be fairly insensitive to a fare change as the majority (62%) either do not pay the fare themselves or have a high personal income.

2.4.4 Average wait time, shown in Table 7, is 4.4 minutes for taxi

Table 7. Wait Time

Wait Time Taxi

Less than 1 minute 23%

1 to 2 minutes 33%

3 to 5 minutes 27%

6 to 10 minutes 9%

11 to 15 minutes 5%

Over 15 minutes 4%

Total 100%

Base 887

Mean 4.4 mins



Table 8. Fare

Fare Taxi

Up to £3.00 0.2%

£3.01 - £5.00 3%

£5.01 - £7.00 5%

£7.01 - £10.00 19%

£10.01 - £15.00 25%

£15.01 - £20.00 19%

£20.01 - £25.00 10%

£25.01 - £30.00 6%

More than £30.00 14%

Total 100%

Base (journeys) 887

Mean (cost) £20.20

Table 9. Journey Time

Journey Time Taxi

1 to 10 minutes 30%

11 to 20 minutes 42%

21 to 30 minutes 17%

31 to 45 minutes 8%

46 to 60 minutes 2%

Over 60 minutes 2%

Total 100%

Base (journeys) 887

Mean (minutes) 20 mins



2.4.5 Overall, ease of use (convenience, speed, door-to-door) were the main reasons for mode choice, illustrated in Table 10. Few taxi respondents gave payment or cost related responses.

Table 10. Reason for choosing taxi [multiple choice]

Reason for choosing mode Taxi

Convenient 53%

Quick 52%

Door-to-door 34%

Affordable 7%

Could pay by card 6%

Other 4%

Company arranged 3%

Preferred choice unavailable 2%

Like to know / agree fare in advance 0%

2.4.6 On-street hirings were the prominent method of hiring a taxi – either by hailing (57%) or via a rank (26%). Approximately, one in six taxi hirings (16%) were booked via phone or app.

Table 11. Method of hire: Taxi

Method Taxi

Hailed on the street 57%

Taxi rank 26%

Booked by phone 9%

Mobile phone app 7%

Booked by email <1%

Other 1%

Total 100%

2.4.7 The main journey purpose, as shown in Table 12, was for entertainment (37% of reported trips). More than one-third of taxi trips were for business (37%) and less than one in ten hirings (8%) were to get to/from work.

Table 12. Purpose: Most recent taxi trip

Purpose Taxi

Entertainment 37%

Business trip 21%

To/from usual workplace 8%

Accompany somebody/collect somebody 7%

Tourism 8%

To/from school/college/university 1%

Shopping 7%

Collect/deliver items 2%



Other (please specify) 10%

Total 100%

2.5 Demand Elasticities

2.5.1 Respondents who had made at least one taxi journey in the past 6 months were asked to recollect their last such journey, including the nature of the trip, time of day, journey purpose and travel group. We also obtained detailed information on the journey duration, fare and wait time; plus similar estimates of fare, journey time and wait time (if applicable) for their best non-taxi alternative (i.e. for example, if there had been a taxi driver strike).

2.5.2 These actual trip-specific details became the context for an exercise to derive Fares Elasticities and (separately) Wait Time Elasticities of Demand. Respondents were asked to imagine that they were to re-make the same trip and consider different taxi alternatives (comprising different combination fare and wait time) alongside the option of their best non-taxi alternative. The proportion of taxi users who would have still travelled by taxi even if the fare was X% higher; or had a wait time Y% longer provides direct insight into the sensitivity of passengers to fares and wait time changes (i.e. demand elasticities). Such an exercise is open to policy-response bias (e.g. respondents might shy away from options with fares increases to avoid the perceived risk of giving a response that may lead policy-makers to introduce a fares increase) so checks for consistency2 of response were conducted during analysis.

2.5.3 Our findings are summarised in Table 13 and suggests that sensitivity to a fares increase is fairly consistent across the tariff periods - but the night-time period is particularly sensitive. In contrast, passengers are less sensitive to wait time increases overall, but sensitivity is much greater in Tariff Period 2 than the other tariff periods.

2.5.4 In absolute terms, the larger the elasticity, the greater the sensitivity to fare (or wait time) change, and the negative sign means that demand will rise, or fall, inversely to whether the fare change falls or increases. An elasticity of -1 would indicate that a X% increase in fare would leave to an X% fall in demand, whilst the nearer the change is to zero, the less sensitive demand is (i.e., inelastic).

Table 13. Fares and Wait Time Elasticities of Demand

Tariff period

Change in Demand to +40% Fare

Implied Fares Elasticity

Change in Demand to +40%

Wait Time

Implied Wait Time Elasticity

Tariff Period 1 -30% -0.78 -6% -0.14

Tariff Period 2 -35% -0.75 -23% -0.58

Tariff Period 3 -31% -0.87 -11% -0.27

Total -31% -0.78 -10% -0.26

2 For example, we assigned a weighting lower than unity to responses that indicated they would prefer to use an alternative mode rather than pay a higher taxi fare when, in fact, their company paid the fare.



2.5.5 These results are similar in scale to those derived in our 2000 DETR research (that used similar survey-based techniques) and that underpinned the policy of increasing the night-time tariff to encourage more drivers to work during unsocial periods when there was excess demand.

2.5.6 It should be noted that the above findings should not be treated as the final reaction to a tariff change, since the survey explicitly excluded the changes in supply factors, which would come about from increased fares. Only through the iterative processes of a model can a new equilibrium position be found following a tariff change (see chapter Five).

2.6 Taxi Passenger Profile

2.6.1 Our best source of passenger demographics comes from the driver logs which should be an entirely representative snapshot of taxi passengers across London. In comparison to the Traveller survey, demographics are broadly the same, though the Traveller Survey had a slightly higher proportion of respondents aged over 65 years, likely due to the nature of the questionnaire via a panel3.

2.6.2 As part of logging trips, drivers asked passengers about their residency, age and gender. Two-thirds of taxi passengers live in London; 22% elsewhere in the UK and one-fifth from overseas. There is a largely equal gender balance, and the majority (58%) of passengers were aged 16-39 years, and one-third aged 40-59 years.

Table 14. Passenger Residency

Home All London Suburban Total

Within Greater London 47% 11% 58%

Rest of UK 20% 2% 22%

Non-UK 19% 1% 20%

Total 85% 15% 100%

Figure 2. Age and Gender

3 Panels strive to be representative of society; whereas the logged profile of passengers using their taxi by drivers should be fully representative of passenger demographics



3. SUPPLY-SIDE PERSPECTIVE

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 In September 2015, TfL commissioned a fieldwork exercise to issue trip diaries to taxi drivers, requiring them to record details of hirings over a minimum of three days4. The travel diary asked for the following details about each hiring:

the taxi driver’s license type (All London / Suburban licence holder) and region they predominantly work within; and

for each trip:

Day of week Payment type Job type (rank, hailed, app etc) Pickup address and zone Drop-off address and zone Start and end time Start and end mileage Details of any stops en-route Journey purpose

Passenger demographics.

3.1.2 A total of 170 drivers completed diaries during this most recent survey wave; providing details on 3,744 individual trips.

3.1.3 Information on drivers was taken from the 2015 Taxi and Private Hire Driver Survey5.

3.1.4 In addition, an online questionnaire was emailed out to a sample of 6,000 taxi drivers, with a mix of Suburban and All London licenses. The survey was live for 4 weeks in September/October 2016. One hundred and forty-eight drivers completed the survey. This sample size implies a level of precision of circa 7% at the 95% level. That is, if 75% of our sample of drivers hold a particular view, then we can be 95% sure that between 68%-82% of the population of taxi drivers hold this view. Although it is always desirable to have a larger sample size, we consider the sample size to be sufficient for the purposes of this study. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

3.2 Profile of Taxi Drivers and Shift Patterns

3.2.1 There were a total of 25,047 drivers registered with TfL during 2015. The breakdown by All London (i.e. green badge) and Suburban (i.e. yellow badge) licence holder is given in Table 15.

4 Stating a minimum of three days is problematic in two ways. First, it may mean that a driver working nights stops recording trips mid-way through a shift. More fundamentally, if all diaries were sent out at the same time (such as over the weekend), then the recorded trips will be skewed towards the beginning of the week – as seems to have been the case with this last wave of survey data. When SYSTRA did this survey in 2000, a full week’s hirings were logged by each driver. 5 “Taxi and Private Hire Driver Diary Survey 2015” Draft Report to TfL, Steer Davies Gleave, April 2016



Table 15. Number of Licenced Taxi Drivers by Type of Licence

Badge type Sample Licensed

Suburban 30 (18%) 3,428 (14%)

All London 140 (82%) 21,619 (86%)

Total 170 25,047

3.2.2 The majority of drivers hold All London licences, allowing them to work across all of Greater London. A small proportion hold Suburban licences, valid for a particular area of non-central London (excluding Heathrow Airport).

3.2.3 More than 80% of drivers report that they have driven a taxi for over 5 years; whilst more than 40% report driving a taxi for over 20 years. As one would therefore expect, the majority of drivers are aged over 45 years. On average, drivers work 39.8 hours per week, across 4.6 days per week and 44 weeks of the year. Shift length is, on average, 8.7 hours with 9.8 trips per shift (though a parallel complementary self-reported telephone interview survey suggested a higher number of trips per shift, 13.2).

Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Driver Shifts

3.2.4 Table 16 presents the spatial distribution of driver working hours. For example, 36% of weekly driver hours are in Central London on a weekday. Overall, more than half of all drivers’ work is in the ‘inner’ London area; and 90% of all taxi activity is on a weekday.

Table 16. Spatial distribution of trips*

Weekday Weekend Total

Central 36% 3% 39%

Inner 46% 6% 52%

Outer 7% 1% 8%

Outside London <1% 0% 0%

Heathrow <1% <1% 0%

Total 90% 10% 100%

*based on analysis of logged trips hirings and shift working patterns

3.3 Extent and Nature of Supply

Driver Operating Hours

Table 17 presents the total number of drivers working (as stated by trip logs) in any given hour. As such, it shows a scaled-up representation of total licenced taxi drivers by expanding from our sampled drivers to the population of drivers (Table 24). For example, we estimate that on a typical Monday at 08:00 there are 9,133 drivers (taxis) in operation. The table is highlighted to show areas of high (green) and low (yellow/red) levels of supply; with the ‘Tariff 1’ time periods having a higher supply than others, particularly the mid-week afternoon peak (4pm – 8pm).



Table 17. Driver operating hours – all drivers*

*based on sample of 163 drivers with ‘treatable’ trip information (3658 trips) and expanded by the number of licenced drivers and average working hours

3.3.1 Overall, supply appears to be highest in the middle of the day (08:00 to 16:00), and during the earlier days of week, particularly Tuesdays and Wednesday. Supply drops off significantly outside of Tariff Period 1. There is some uncertainty over the nature of the supply; whether this snapshot is fully representative of the population of drivers (there are some apparent ‘gaps’ in the data), and to what extent the supply is driven by drivers’ personal preference/convenience for when they choose to work, or if they select their driving hours to maximise revenue – thus, in response to market needs.



3.3.2 From our survey of taxi drivers, we have an indication of the main driver(s) influencing current shift patterns. Notably, fitting around personal and family life, and habit or routine, are more influential in defining drivers’ shift patterns than desire to work the most profitable hours.

Table 18. Reasons drivers work their chosen hours

Why do you work the hours that you do?

Day-and-Night

Drivers

Daytime-only Drivers

Nightime-only Drivers

Total

Habit / routine 22% 7% 1% 30%

It's when I can access a taxi 3% 0% 0% 3%

To fit around my family / private life

30% 10% 0% 39%

When it is most profitable 14% 3% 0% 17%

Other 10% 1% 0% 11%

Total 79% 20% 1% 100%

3.3.3 These results suggest that increases in fares and tariffs might only have a moderate ability to influence the supply of taxis at particular times of day (especially amongst daytime drivers).

3.3.4 The estimated number of taxis on the road, for any given hour, is provided by All London/ Suburban licence holders, in Table 19.

Table 19. Driver operating hours – by licence type

3.3.5 These results are indicative only as the sample for Suburban licence holders, is modest6. Making allowance for this, our broad conclusion is that times of operation across the week are fairly similar for All London and Suburban licenced drivers.

6 This analysis could be revised if past driver log data was provided.



Total Hirings

3.3.6 Table 20 shows the overall profile of hirings, based on the start time of the job, expanded using the average trips and hours per shift as reported in SDG’s 2015 driver log report. Number of hirings is highest earlier in the week, between 08:00 and 22:00, with met demand reducing in Tariff Periods 2 and 3, and slightly lower on the Friday.

Table 20. Total Hirings – All Drivers

3.3.7 Table 21 reports the same profile of hirings but by licence type, to establish any difference in supply and demand between All London and Suburban taxis. Number of hirings is more sporadic amongst suburban drivers (partly due to small sub-sample sizes), with notable variations across days and times. The pattern of hirings is more consistent amongst ‘All London’ drivers, with most hirings taking place in Tariff Period 1 and a clear reduction in trips in unsocial hours.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total

00:00 2451 5718 2802 3168 1783 2797 778 19497

01:00 1311 2649 490 2193 3132 3352 13127

02:00 684 1113 0 2028 1573 1026 6424

03:00 262 1537 0 2333 754 279 5165

04:00 1051 2911 1364 2649 7975

05:00 643 3513 2415 682 7253

06:00 2183 3449 2731 767 1506 849 11485

07:00 6569 9093 8368 4753 707 849 1295 31634

08:00 10300 11194 11939 8667 3800 849 1750 48499

09:00 9550 13640 13626 8888 5226 1465 2033 54427

10:00 12721 13718 15148 10804 3086 2725 2782 60984

11:00 12826 11929 10806 7114 4021 3961 3877 54535

12:00 10902 15376 10855 6964 5497 5953 4228 59774

13:00 11993 15134 11194 9750 5733 4908 3116 61827

14:00 12920 12970 12705 7742 6498 4752 3201 60788

15:00 13037 15392 11114 6686 6000 4033 3209 59471

16:00 12254 12046 12932 8914 6474 4523 3370 60513

17:00 12427 17686 15510 9139 7673 3892 5043 71370

18:00 16450 19185 13063 9917 10071 3488 2818 74993

19:00 12734 15164 13003 6978 4871 3418 2701 58869

20:00 8250 15959 9677 7877 6421 3177 2660 54020

21:00 9893 16660 9644 7805 3621 3412 1641 52675

22:00 17105 15375 12158 7745 5537 2560 1150 61630

23:00 6200 11144 8068 3588 5381 3088 340 37809

Total 204715 262555 209612 147149 99366 65355 45990 1034743



Table 21. Total Hirings - licence type

3.3.8 Figure 3 shows the number of hirings per driver by time of day. There is an average hirings ratio of 1.09 (1.13 for All London and 0.88 for Suburban), with a minimum of 0.9 (All London) and 0.5 (Suburban) suggesting a relative over-supply of drivers; and a maximum of 1.8 (All London) and 2.6 (Suburban) suggesting a relative under-supply of drivers. The ratio is highest late at night and in the early hours, and consistently low between 11:00 and 15:00.

Figure 3. Average Number of hirings per driver by Time of Day

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total

00:00 1969 4629 2555 2484 1270 2175 778 15860 481 1089 248 684 513 622 3637

01:00 424 2167 243 1914 2575 2623 9946 887 481 248 279 557 729 3181

02:00 707 2028 1016 748 4498 684 405 557 279 1925

03:00 1132 2333 754 4219 262 405 279 946

04:00 1051 2911 1364 2649 7975 0

05:00 643 3513 2415 682 7253 0

06:00 1318 3449 2731 767 8266 864 864

07:00 4732 8572 7763 4228 707 849 849 27701 1836 521 605 525 446 3933

08:00 8380 9806 10020 7824 2978 849 1301 41158 1920 1389 1919 843 823 448 7341

09:00 6934 13018 12942 8466 4332 1465 453 47610 2616 622 684 422 894 1580 6817

10:00 9514 12345 12990 10350 2901 2725 2150 52975 3207 1373 2158 454 186 632 8010

11:00 10545 10400 9838 6820 3313 3961 2150 47028 2281 1529 968 294 708 1727 7507

12:00 9308 14754 9531 6670 4865 5358 2847 53334 1594 622 1323 294 632 595 1381 6440

13:00 8690 12778 9517 9615 4576 4908 2227 52311 3303 2356 1676 135 1156 889 9516

14:00 11072 11612 11884 7607 5605 4158 2053 53990 1848 1357 821 135 894 595 1148 6798

15:00 11770 14585 10573 6550 4986 3736 2680 54881 1267 807 541 135 1013 297 529 4590

16:00 10597 11518 12261 7894 5791 4523 2744 55328 1656 528 672 1020 683 0 626 5185

17:00 11409 16679 13826 6705 6282 3594 4595 63091 1018 1008 1684 2434 1391 297 448 8279

18:00 15165 18345 11968 8310 9389 2550 2632 68360 1285 840 1095 1607 683 937 186 6633

19:00 11716 14399 11986 5435 4382 2480 2701 53101 1018 764 1017 1543 489 937 5768

20:00 7267 15322 7872 5639 6303 2727 2660 47790 983 637 1806 2237 117 450 6231

21:00 8622 15530 7990 6627 3225 3069 1641 46704 1271 1130 1654 1177 396 343 5971

22:00 15555 13637 10798 4894 4695 2110 1150 52840 1550 1738 1360 2850 842 450 8790

23:00 4681 9812 6861 2298 4868 2466 340 31326 1518 1333 1207 1290 513 622 6483

Total 171365 241621 187927 128791 86319 57924 35951 909898 33350 20933 21686 18358 13048 7431 10039 124845

All London Suburban

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Ratio of hirings to driver hours: by hour

All London Suburban

1.13

1.03

1.28

0.82

0.92

1.01

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Tariff1

Tariff2

Tariff3

Ratio of hirings to driver hours: by tariff

All London Suburban



Trip Profile Information

3.3.9 Table 22 shows the distribution of logged hirings across the week, by Tariff period. The majority (66%) of hirings were in Tariff Period 1, which comprises fewer than half the week’s hours.

Table 22. Trips by Tariff Period

Tariff Period % Total Hirings

% Weekly Hours

Tariff 1 (Mon – Fri 0500-2000) 66% 45%

Tariff 2 (Mon – Fri 2000 – 2200 and Sat/Sun 0500-2200) 19% 26%

Tariff 3 (Mon – Sun 2200 – 0500) 15% 29%

Total 100% 100%

3.3.10 Nearly half of taxi hirings were hailed on-street (48%), and one-third were from a rank (33%). Fewer than ten per cent of hirings were via a radio circuit (9%) or app such as Gett or Hailo (7%). Only 1% of hirings were through other means; such as a marshalled rank or ‘other’.

Table 23. Method of Hiring

Job type All London Suburban Total

Hailed on street 48% 1% 48%

Rank 23% 10% 33%

Radio Circuit 7% 3% 9%

App 7% 1% 7%

Marshalled Rank 1% 0% 1%

Other 0% 0% 1%

Total 86% 14% 100%

3.3.11 The majority of hirings (78%) were paid for by cash. Eight per cent were on account, and just six per cent by bank card; though it is unknown as to how many of the taxis in the study had card payment devices available.

Table 24. Payment

Payment type All London Suburban Total

Cash 67% 11% 78%

Account 7% 1% 8%

Bank Card 6% 0% 6%

Taxicard 1% 1% 2%

App (Account) 4% 1% 5%

App (Other) 0% 0% 1%

Other 0% 0% 0%

Total 85% 15% 100%

3.3.12 Sixty-five per cent of hirings had fares of less than £15; 21% were £15 - £30 and just 7% were over £30. The mean fare was £16; All London licence holder average fares were £15 compared to a much higher £29 for Suburban licence holders. Table 25 shows fare by Tariff Period; the majority of fares were in Tariff 1 between £7 and £15. As might be expected, higher fares are more likely to be paid by account or bank card than lower



fares. Only around half of fares over £20 were paid cash; whereas over 90% of fares under £10 were paid in cash.

Figure 4. Fare band

Table 25. Fares by Tariff Period

3.3.13 The spatial breakdown of taxi hirings is summarised in Table 26. Most hirings end in Inner London (i.e. Zones 6-9 on the Map in Figure 1); and just over half begin in Inner London.

Table 26. Pick-up / Set-down Zones

Central Inner Outer Heathrow Outside London Total

Central 9% 24% 1% 0% 0% 34%

Heathrow 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Inner 5% 44% 2% 0% 0% 52%

Outer 0% 2% 9% 0% 1% 13%

Outside London 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 15% 71% 13% 1% 1% 100%

Fare Tariff 1 Tariff 2 Tariff 3 Total

Up to £3.00 0% 0% 0% 0%

£3.01-£5.00 4% 1% 0% 6%

£5.01-£7.00 9% 2% 2% 13%

£7.01-£10.00 17% 4% 2% 23%

£10.01-£15.00 19% 5% 4% 28%

£15.01-£20.00 9% 2% 2% 13%

£20.01-£25.00 4% 1% 2% 6%

£25.01-£30.00 2% 1% 1% 3%

More than £30.00 4% 1% 2% 7%

Mean £13.90 £14.30 £17.39 £14.85



3.3.14 Taxi drivers were asked to record the mileage at the start and end point of their journeys. Figure 5 indicates the distances recorded for all journeys logged with both a start and end mileage; as can be expected from the fare distribution and location of trips, the majority, 66%, were less than 3 miles. The number of trips drops off noticeably for journeys beyond 5 miles, confirming that longer-length trips are a small part of the taxi market. There is a small spike in demand in the 10-19.9 mile range; which is likely to reflect the high incidence of trips to/from Heathrow.

Figure 5. Distance band

3.3.15 The purpose of each trip, as indicated by the passenger(s), was also recorded. Table 27 below summarises this, and shows a range of reasons for travelling by taxi. One-quarter of trips were for entertainment, and just under one-quarter, 22%, were for journeys to work. Business trips accounted for around one-fifth of journeys. Smaller proportions of trips were for shopping, tourism, school, or simply accompanying / collecting another person.

Table 27. Journey Purpose

Purpose All London Suburban Total

Usual workplace 20% 2% 22%

Entertainment 19% 5% 25%

Business trip 18% 1% 19%

Other 8% 0% 8%

Shopping 7% 2% 9%

Tourism 0% 0% 1%

School 2% 1% 2%

Collection 0% 0% 0%

Accompany 11% 3% 14%

Total 20% 2% 100%



3.4 Level of Non-hired Time

3.4.1 Table 28 presents the percentage of non-hired time by hour across the week, as deduced from the time spent on hirings and between hirings, and number of drivers working. The number in each cell represents the percentage of each hour of operation that the taxi is not carrying a fare (i.e. not earning money)7. It therefore ranges from zero (busy on hirings for the entire hour) to 100 (no time spent on hirings). In the table below, the red boxes highlight periods of the week when drivers are especially ‘non-productive’ (suggesting that supply exceeds demand at these times); and the green boxes highlight times of the week when drivers’ time is especially ‘productive’ (indicating periods when demand is relatively high compared with supply).

Table 28. Percentage of non-hired time, by hour

3.4.2 We understand this to be the first analysis of this type and provides a unique insight into the profile of the market from a taxi drivers’ viewpoint (i.e. what it’s like being a taxi driver). What seems particularly striking is the high proportion of taxi drivers’ time spent un-hired across the whole week, and the implied scope to more fully utilise driver time in some managed way (especially understanding the seemingly random events that are on-street hailing). Much of the time, indeed more than half (58%), of the average shift is spent waiting for the next hiring.

3.4.3 It is apparent that productivity is most variable in the early hours (01:00am – 06:00, Tariff Period 3) on weekdays and at weekends; and productivity appears to be stable

7 Includes planned breaks (such as for meals) as well as unplanned breaks

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Average

00:00 63 58 46 46 48 44 64 53

01:00 37 81 64 37 55 55

02:00 59 65 44 40 52

03:00 24 41 32

04:00 100 65 55 73

05:00 100 79 79 34 73

06:00 92 68 87 85 45 75

07:00 70 68 67 71 69 100 74

08:00 63 58 62 53 67 73 90 67

09:00 58 64 55 49 57 58 74 59

10:00 61 55 54 52 74 46 64 58

11:00 68 57 56 53 62 34 71 57

12:00 76 58 59 49 57 48 63 58

13:00 63 62 64 57 59 53 65 60

14:00 58 54 46 53 51 57 56 54

15:00 62 64 52 53 60 33 56 54

16:00 54 61 47 61 45 53 49 53

17:00 54 51 51 52 54 66 49 54

18:00 47 46 49 53 42 52 49 48

19:00 55 56 55 57 38 52 55 53

20:00 71 69 61 73 57 72 50 65

21:00 64 67 58 59 65 68 58 63

22:00 50 55 47 37 49 63 64 52

23:00 54 51 48 54 47 68 50 53

Average 63 61 57 55 54 54 63 58



during Tariff Period 1, with the exception of 05:00-07:00 where ‘unproductive time’ is high.

3.4.4 In principle, the issue of high non-hired time could be remedied by a change in tariff. In particular, a reduction in fare, if it led to increased demand, would reduce levels of unproductive time – thereby increasing driver efficiency and takings at these times. The converse could be true at times when productivity is especially high – implying potential benefits in increasing fares.

3.4.5 Looking at these findings in conjunction with when, and where, drivers are working allows us to see when low productivity is being affected by high competition from other drivers and when it must be due to low demand. For example, the high un-hired levels in the early hours (0400-0700 Mon-Thu) is experienced by a relatively high number of drivers (denoted green in Table 19) – so seems at least partly due to too many drivers working at these times; whilst the high unproductivity levels on a Sunday morning is at a time when there are few drivers working, so reflects a lack of demand for taxi at this period of the week.

3.4.6 Table 29 reports the ‘non-hired time’ by All London and Suburban licenses; though the small sample size for suburban drivers means the findings should be treated with caution. Average ‘non-hired time’ for All London license holders is 54% compared to 73% for Suburban drivers.

Table 29. Non-hired time – Licence type

3.4.7 Productivity is more variable for Suburban drivers, whereas productivity/hirings is more stable across the week for All London licence holders.

3.4.8 As with much of the data collected as part of this study, there is scope for additional further investigation, and one area of interest would be to explore productivity levels by predominant type of hiring. That is, the extent to which the different ways that taxi drivers work affect their utilisation levels (e.g. differentiating between drivers mainly serving ranks and those more actively seeking customers via on-street circulation and/or accessing advanced-booking via telephone or smartphone apps).

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Average Average Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Average

00:00 33 57 36 46 48 36 64 46 78 60 66 63 67

01:00 74 64 30 42 53 37 100 64 93 74

02:00 60 65 35 53 56 54 53 54

03:00 24 41 32

04:00 100 65 55 73

05:00 100 79 79 34 73

06:00 91 68 87 85 45 75 100 100

07:00 79 68 67 68 69 70 91 100 95

08:00 61 58 59 52 60 73 70 62 69 50 92 55 100 100 78

09:00 56 61 50 47 57 58 75 58 64 88 83 73 53 74 73

10:00 62 54 54 47 64 46 53 54 60 61 55 89 93 68 71

11:00 64 56 54 49 58 34 80 56 74 67 85 86 73 65 75

12:00 67 56 57 46 47 46 63 55 89 73 73 78 83 83 62 77

13:00 63 59 62 56 54 52 70 60 62 81 85 67 72 60 58 69

14:00 57 52 43 49 43 55 51 50 65 80 76 92 68 67 63 73

15:00 57 62 49 52 55 30 53 51 82 86 73 67 73 42 63 69

16:00 50 62 44 58 33 45 40 47 72 57 75 84 77 100 70 76

17:00 51 51 47 45 46 63 41 49 70 79 75 80 83 90 80

18:00 42 46 46 42 33 47 45 43 81 50 69 77 80 73 77 72

19:00 53 55 55 45 36 42 55 49 72 76 57 78 58 80 70

20:00 70 67 57 72 54 66 50 62 76 96 76 73 87 95 84

21:00 62 65 55 53 63 57 58 59 76 94 68 79 80 94 82

22:00 45 51 43 34 42 59 64 48 73 73 62 44 84 72 68

23:00 52 51 41 54 40 59 50 50 61 48 61 58 71 85 64

Average 61 60 55 53 48 51 58 54 72 72 73 74 75 76 74 74

All London Suburban



3.5 Driver Revenue and Sensitivity to Change in Revenue per Hour

Revenue per hour

3.5.1 Analysis of hourly revenue has been calculated from recorded fares, by All London and Suburban drivers, as reported in Figure 6. In line with the tariff structure, revenue is highest in the early hours and late evening8. The roll-out of the Night Tube should be noted as this introduces a cost-effective and efficient alternative to taxis during these hours, and may affect demand levels going forward.

Figure 6. Revenue by hour

3.5.2 Despite low ‘productivity’ in some hours, particularly early/late hours and weekends, overall revenue is, on average, estimated to be £13.44 (All London) and £12.12 (Suburban) per hour. Bearing in mind the taxi drivers’ reported average working week of circa 40 hours, this implies a relatively modest salary, based on taxi hirings compared with average salary for London. Whilst there are, of course, additional revenue streams for many drivers (including advertising); there are significant costs of employment that are unique to taxi drivers (i.e. high vehicle purchase/hire costs and running/maintenance costs).

Estimated Elasticity of Supply

3.5.3 An online questionnaire was emailed out to a sample of 6,000 taxi drivers, with a mix of Suburban and All London licenses. The survey was live over a four week period in September/October 2016. One hundred and forty-eight drivers completed the survey.

3.5.4 In order to understand driver sensitivity to possible changes in revenue per hour, we asked our sample of drivers to consider three tariff scenarios in turn.

3.5.5 For each hypothetical scenario, drivers were asked to “assume that the change in tariff rate would lead directly to a consequential change in hourly revenue”. That is, an

8 so not directly based on drivers’ reported revenues/take-home pay which would be open to policy-response bias



increase in Tariff N of X% would lead directly to an increase in hourly revenue of X% for every hour worked in Tariff Period N.

Scenario Testing: a 25% increase in Tariff 2 and Tariff 3

3.5.6 A large majority of drivers (83%) would not change their current working hours if their hourly revenues in Tariff Periods 2 and 3 increased by 25%. As seen previously, while the majority do some night-time (Tariff 3) hours, this accounts for only a small proportion of their overall working hours. The responses of our sample of drivers suggest that an increase in both Tariffs 2 and 3 will have only a small effect on drivers’ individual shift patterns.

Table 30. Would you change your schedule if this new tariff structure was in place?

All London Licence

holders Suburban Licence

holders Total

Yes 13% 4% 17%

No 62% 21% 83%

Total 75% 25% 100%

3.5.7 Overall, although this scenario would see an increase of driver supply during the Tariff 3 period, it would also lead to a reduction in hours worked in Tariff 1. The overall number of hours worked by drivers would change marginally.

Table 31. Sensitivity of Supply to a +25% Increase in Revenues in Tariff Periods 2 & 3

Tariff period

Current total working

hours

Modified total

working hours

Change in total

working hours

Estimated % change in working hours

Tariff 1 hours 3565 3404 -161 -5%

Tariff 2 hours 1260 1354 +94 +7%

Tariff 3 hours 1082 1176 +94 +8%

Total 5907 5934 +27 +0.5%

3.5.8 Thus, an increase in revenue of +25% in Tariff Periods 2 and 3 would lead to an increase in supply of +8% in Tariff Period 3, +7% in Tariff Period 2 and a reduction in supply of -5% in Tariff Period 1.

Scenario Testing: a 40% increase in Tariff 2

3.5.9 This scenario would have an effect on drivers’ individual shift patterns, with 23% indicating that they would change their operating hours.


All London Licence


holders Total

Yes 18% 5% 23%

No 57% 20% 77%

Total 75% 25% 100%



3.5.10 However, this scenario would lead to an increase in supply of Taxis during the evening and weekend periods with drivers indicating that they would work 11% more during the Tariff 2 period. This scenario would see an overall increase in the number of hours worked and, while there would be a small decrease in supply during the Tariff 1 period (1%), overall, there would be a 1% increase in hours worked across all Tariff periods.

Table 33. Sensitivity of Supply to a +40% Increase in Tariff Period 2 Revenues

Tariff period


hours

Modified total

working hours

Change in total

working hours


Tariff 1 hours 3565 3516 -49 -1%

Tariff 2 hours 1260 1396 +136 +11%

Tariff 3 hours 1082 1077 -5 -0.5%

Total 5907 5989 +82 +1%

3.5.11 Thus, an increase in revenue of +40% in Tariff Period 2 only would lead to an increase in supply of +11% in Tariff Period 2, and a reduction in supply of -1% in Tariff Period 1 and -0.5% in Tariff Period 3.

3.5.12 This finding is of particular interest as our survey of London Travellers suggested that there was potential demand not being met because of a lack of supply during Tariff Period 2; and this result suggests that potential could be realised if there was an increase in Tariff 2 only or in conjunction, perhaps, with a reduction in other Tariff Periods (if average fares were to be maintained).

Scenario Testing: a 25% Fare increase in Tariff 1

3.5.13 Of the three proposed scenarios researched with drivers, this scenario would encourage the most drivers to alter their working patterns.


All London Licence


holders Total

Yes 20% 12% 32%

No 55% 13% 68%

Total 75% 25% 100%

3.5.14 While this scenario would see the greatest increase in overall working hours (4% increase), the effect would be to further magnify the current discrepancies in volume of supply between the Tariff 1 and Tariff 3 periods.



Table 35. Sensitivity of Supply to a +25% Increase in Tariff Period 1 Revenues

Tariff period


hours

Modified total

working hours

Change in total

working hours


Tariff 1 hours 3565 3976 +411 +12%

Tariff 2 hours 1260 1210 -50 -4%

Tariff 3 hours 1082 953 -129 -12%

Total 5907 6139 +232 +4%

3.5.15 Thus, an increase in revenue of +25% in Tariff Period 1 (when most drivers currently do some shifts) would lead to an increase in supply of +12% in Tariff Period 1, and a reduction in supply of -12% in Tariff Period 3 and -4% in Tariff Period 2.

Additional Revenue Streams

3.5.16 Just under one-quarter of drivers (23%) reported that they earned revenue from advertising on their taxi. All London License holders are more likely to report receiving advertising revenue than those who hold Suburban Licenses.

Table 36. Do you get revenue from advertising on your taxi?*

All London Licence


holders Total

Yes 13% 10% 23%

No 63% 14% 77%

Total 76% 24% 100%

* Based on the 101 (of 148) drivers who answered this question

3.5.17 Of the 23 drivers who receive revenue from advertising on their taxi, most said that the revenue is a small compared to the revenue from fares. About a quarter said that the advertising revenue is a reasonable proportion of revenue compared to revenue from fares. None of the drivers thought that revenue from advertising was high.

Table 37. Advertising revenue compared with revenue from fares:*

Proportion of advertising to fare revenue

All London Licence holders

Suburban Licence holders

Total

A small proportion 44% 30% 74%

A reasonable proportion 13% 13% 26%

A high proportion 0% 0% 0%

Total 57% 44% 100%

*Based on the 23 drivers who get revenue from advertising on their taxi

3.5.18 This is significantly higher than the proportion receiving additional revenue streams according to SDG’s 2015 report, where 18 of the 361 (5%) surveyed drivers volunteered that they had complementary income from an alternative source or employment.



Table 38. Which radio circuits do you work with (multiple choice)?

All London Licence


holders Total

Computer Cab 39% 14% 53%

Dial a Cab 31% 0% 31% Radio Taxis 17% 0% 17%

Based on 36 drivers who said that they get jobs via radio circuits.

3.5.19 Of the 61 drivers who said they get jobs via apps, 90% said that they work with Hailo. Almost half work with Gett, while 10% use Cabapp.

Table 39. Which apps do you work with (multiple choice)?

All London Licence


holders Total

Cabapp 5% 5% 10%

Gett (Get Taxi) 38% 10% 48%

Hailo 72% 18% 90%

Uber 0% 0% 0%

Other 7% 0% 7% Based on 61 drivers who said that they get jobs via apps

3.6 Drivers’ Views on Taxi Fares and Tariffs

3.6.1 More than half of all drivers said that the current tariff system should be changed. The majority (56%) of London drivers said that the system should be changed, while the majority (55%) of Suburban drivers said that the system should remain unchanged.

Table 40. Should the current tariff system (both rates and times at which they apply) remain in its present form or change?

All London Licence


holders Total

It should remain as it is 33% 11% 44%

It should be changed 47% 9% 56%

Total 80% 20% 100%

3.6.2 Of the 67 drivers who said that the current tariff system should be changed, 57% said that the current periods of operation for Tariff Period 3 needs to be changed. This was the change that received most support, from both All London and Suburban drivers. Furthermore, 43% thought that the minimum fare should change; and 40% thought that the mileage threshold at which the long-distance tariff starts should be changed.



3.6.3 Around one in eight drivers (12-13%) supported each of the following potential changes: Changing Tariff 1 time periods; Tariff 2 rate per mile; and changing fixed charges for bookings.

3.6.4 Just over a quarter of respondents supported the re-introduction of additional charges, including card payment charges.

Table 41. Which aspects of the tariff system would you like to see changed (multiple choice)?

All London

Licence holders

Suburban Licence holders

Total

% agreeing

The minimum fare 39% 5% 43%

Tariff 1 (rate per mile) 16% 3% 19% Tariff 1 (current periods of operation) 13% 2% 15%



The mileage threshold at which the long-distance tariff starts (Sometimes referred to as 'Tariff 4') 37% 3% 40%

The fixed charge for online / phone bookings 12% 3% 15% Introduce charges for luggage, additional passengers or card payments 25% 2% 27%

Other 12% 3% 15% Based on the 67 drivers who said that the tariff system should be changed

3.6.5 Views on fixed fares from Heathrow were mixed. Thirty-eight percent of drivers said that they either strongly, or tend, to support an introduction of a fixed fare from Heathrow to central London. However, a very similar proportion of drivers (35%) said that they strongly, or tend, to oppose the fixed fare from Heathrow. Twenty-nine percent of drivers neither supported nor opposed the fixed fare from Heathrow.

3.6.6 Other ideas put forward from a small minority included: charges for card payments; a minimum fare (£10) for card payments; removing Tariff 3; discounts for longer journeys; starting Tariff Period 2 earlier; and tariffs for public holidays/Easter.



3.6.7 Drivers were specifically asked their views on: fixed fares from Heathrow; and changes to long-distance tariff rates and the minimum fare.

Table 42. To what extent would you support or oppose a TfL proposal to introduce a fixed fare from Heathrow to central London?

All London Licence


holders* Total

Strongly support 19% 1% 19%

Tend to support 15% 4% 19%

Neither support nor oppose 19% 10% 29% Tend to oppose 14% 0% 14%

Strongly oppose 13% 5% 19% Total 80% 20% 100% * Only All London drivers can use the taxi ranks at Heathrow Airport but Suburban drivers can accept

bookings to pick up passengers from the airport and also drop off passengers there

3.6.8 Most drivers (59%) thought that the tariff for journeys of over 6 miles should stay the same, though those that felt it should change were more likely to support a decrease than an increase. Almost a quarter though that it should decrease, while 17% thought that it should increase.

Table 43. Do you think that the tariff for journeys of over 6 miles should…?

All London Licence


holders Total

Increase 13% 4% 17% Decrease 19% 6% 24%

Stay the same 49% 10% 59%

Total 80% 20% 100%

3.6.9 Most drivers (52%) thought that the minimum fare should stay the same. Forty-four percent thought that it should increase, however.

Table 44. Do you think that the minimum fare of £2.60 should...?

All London Licence


holders Total

Increase 35% 8% 44% Decrease 3% 1% 4%

Stay the same 41% 11% 52% Total 80% 20% 100%



4. HEATHROW MARKET

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Heathrow is an area of particular interest to the taxi trade and TfL as it operates in a manner distinct from that of the trade in general. The airport attracts a high volume of taxis, and in order to manage supply, there is a ‘feeder park’ in operation. This facility provides a location for arriving taxis to queue before being distributed to the various ranks across the airport based on demand. As a result, a taxi driver working at Heathrow generally takes fewer, but higher fare, trips than drivers working elsewhere.

4.1.2 The profile of demand also differs; trips are generally longer, and passengers are more likely to be non-UK residents, and therefore potentially less informed about alternative options and costs; and more likely to be encumbered by luggage and/or keen to take the ‘most convenient option’ after a long flight. There may also be a higher proportion of business travellers who, since their company will be paying, may be less sensitive to fare changes, compared to typical taxi users.

4.2 Heathrow Passengers’ Views and Profile

4.2.1 A short (two-minute) snapshot survey was undertaken with taxi passengers as they queued for a taxi at Heathrow (across 3 terminals between 7am and 10pm). The survey gathered key profile information about Heathrow passengers and their time and cost expectations in the context of their imminent taxi journey; as well as to recruit for a longer, web-based survey. The questionnaires used can be found in Appendix C.

4.2.2 A sample of 586 completed interviews was obtained from the snapshot survey, and a further 28 from the longer online survey. Due to the shifts worked, and the nature of Heathrow operating hours, the vast majority (96%) of respondents were travelling in Tariff Period 1, and 4% in Tariff Period 2. Of those that reported back about their journey, taxi journeys recorded from Heathrow range between 7am and 8pm. Around half occurred in the morning peak (14%) or evening peak (32%) and 54% in the inter-peak period.

4.2.3 Eighty percent of those who responded to the full questionnaire have travelled to or from Heathrow by taxi within the last 12 months (aside from the journey they took when recruited for the questionnaire).

Profile of Heathrow Taxi Passengers (Snapshot survey)

4.2.4 Only around half (49%) of taxi hirings from Heathrow Airport were considered to be for ‘Central London’ as described by the passenger; and more than half of all taxi passengers at Heathrow (53%) reside outside the UK (see Table 45). The majority of travellers to Central London are from outside of the UK and are most likely to be travelling on their own or with one other person.

Table 45. Residency – Snapshot Survey

Residency Central London Non-Central London Total

London 14% 16% 29%

Non-UK 29% 24% 53%

UK Non-London 7% 11% 18%



Total 49% 51% 100%

4.2.5 Tables 46-48 show the journey purpose of hirings from Heathrow; the proportion carrying bags; and the distribution of passengers’ expected fare and journey time by destination.

Table 46. Journey Purpose - Snapshot Survey

Purpose Central London Non-Central London Total

Leisure/Tourism 12% 33% 45%

Business 3% 22% 25%

Work 4% 4% 8%

Other 10% 12% 22%

Total 29% 71% 100%

Table 47. Number of Bags - Snapshot Survey

No. Bags Central London Non-Central London Total

0 2% 3% 5%

1-2 14% 20% 33%

3-4 24% 25% 49%

5 or more 9% 5% 13%

Total 47% 53% 100%

Table 48. Reported Wait Time – Full Survey

Wait time 7am - 10am 10am - 4pm 4pm - 8pm Total

< 5 minutes 11% 50% 32% 93%

5 – 10 minutes 0% 4% 0% 4%

11 minutes or more 4% 0% 0% 4%

Total 14% 54% 32% 100%

Mean 2 minutes

4.2.6 Tables 49 and 51 below present the estimated fare (‘how much do you think it is going to cost?) and reported fare (‘how much did the black cab trip cost?’). In general, the mean journey cost was slightly higher than predicted, but less than 10% more.

Table 49. Estimate Journey Cost - Snapshot Survey

Journey Cost Central London Non-Central London Total

£0.00-£19.99 1% 5% 6%

£20.00 - £39.99 3% 8% 11%

£40.00 - £59.99 14% 13% 27%

£60.00 - £79.99 15% 6% 21%

£80.00 - £99.99 7% 10% 16%

£100.00 - £119.00 3% 1% 4%

Over £120.00 0% 1% 1%

Don’t Know 6% 7% 13%

Total 49% 51% 100%

Mean £62 £54



Table 50. Reported Journey Cost – Full Survey

Journey Cost Central London Non-Central London Total

£0.00-£19.99 0% 11% 11%

£20.00 - £39.99 0% 14% 14%

£40.00 - £59.99 11% 18% 29%

£60.00 - £79.99 18% 4% 21%

£80.00 - £99.99 11% 7% 18%

£100.00 - £119.00 0% 0% 0%

Over £120.00 0% 7% 7%

Don’t Know 0% 0% 0%

Total 39% 61% 100%

Mean £67 £57

Table 51. Estimated Journey Time – Snapshot Survey

Journey Time Central London Non-Central London Total

0-10 minutes 0% 1% 2%

11 - 30 minutes 4% 12% 17%

31 - 60 minutes 31% 26% 57%

61 - 90 minutes 8% 6% 14%

Over 90 minutes 1% 2% 2%

Don't Know 5% 4% 9%

Total 49% 51% 100%

Mean 41 minutes

Table 52. Reported Journey Time – Full Survey

Journey Time Central London Inner London Total

0-10 minutes 0% 14% 14%

11 - 30 minutes 0% 18% 18%

31 - 60 minutes 32% 23% 55%

61 - 90 minutes 5% 9% 14%

Over 90 minutes 0% 0% 0%

Don't Know 0% 0% 0%

Total 36% 64% 100%

Mean 45 minutes



4.2.7 Nearly two-thirds of respondents agreed they chose to travel by taxi for convenience and speed. Around a fifth thought taking a taxi was an affordable option (of these, half were travelling alone and half were travelling in a group), and 4% chose to travel by taxi because their preferred method of travel was unavailable.

Table 53. Reason for choosing taxi (multiple choice)

Reason Percentage

Convenient 64%

Quick 61%

Door-to-door 57%

Affordable 21%

Could pay by card 14%

Company arranged 4%

Preferred choice unavailable 4%

Other 4%

Total 100%

Journey Fare, Tariffs and Payment Devices

4.2.8 The mean taxi fare from Heathrow, reported by passengers, was £60. Half of all respondents stated this was ‘about what they expected’. One-quarter of respondents considered the fare to be higher than they expected. Of those that stated ‘more expensive’, almost three-quarters were non-London residents (57% non-UK, 14% UK non-London) so may have been less informed about price, and be less informed about alternative options.

Table 54. Cheaper or more expensive than expected

Actual Fare Relative to Expectations Percentage

Much more expensive 11%

A little more expensive 14%

About what I expected 50%

A little cheaper 25%

Total 100%

4.2.9 The majority of fares were paid for by the respondent; and a quarter were paid for by their employer.

Table 55. Payment

Payment Percentage

Paid for by myself 75%

Paid for by my company 25%

Total 100%



4.2.10 Overall, we have found that the vast majority of passengers using taxis to travel from Heathrow to Central London seem likely to be relatively insensitive to a moderate change to the taxi tariff. As Table 56 demonstrates, 90% are resident outside of London, and/or have 3 or more pieces of luggage and/or anticipate that the fare for their journey will be over £80.

Table 56. Sensitivity to Fare

Criteria Sub-sample Total

All travelling to Central London 290 100%

Non UK or Non London 209 72%

3 or more bags 130 45%

Expect over £80 fare 76 26%

One or more of above criteria 262 90%

4.2.11 Three-quarters of respondents paid by cash, 25% by card. Around 70% of respondents stated the taxi had the facility to take both card and cash payments.

Table 57. Payment Type

Payment Percentage

Cash 75%

Card 25%

Total 100%

Table 58. Were cash and card payment mechanisms available

Payment Percentage

Yes 71%

No 10%

Don’t Know 19%

Total 100%

4.2.12 Seventy-one per cent of respondents were rightly aware that it is possible to pay by card in some London Taxis. A fifth incorrectly thought all cabs accepted card payments, and 4% though it was not possible to pay by card at all.

Table 59. As far as you are aware, is it possible to pay by credit/debit card in black cabs in London?

Response Percentage

Yes, in some cabs 71%

Yes, in all cabs 21%

No 4%

Don't Know 4%

Total 100%



4.2.13 In general, card payment facilities would make respondents a little more likely to use Taxis to or from Heathrow; 33% stated ‘much more’ or a ‘a little more’ likely. However, the majority (68%) stated it would not change the frequency of cab use.

Table 60. Do you think that being able to pay by debit/credit card will make you more, or less likely to use black cabs

to/from Heathrow?

Response Percentage

Much more likely 21%

A little more likely 11%

No change 68%

A little less likely 0%

Much less likely 0%

Total 100%

4.2.14 Heathrow passengers were asked how often they would pay by card once the roll-out of card machines in all taxis was complete. The full context to the question was as follows.

“When all black cabs allow card payment - and bearing in mind there won’t be a need to have the cash before getting into a black cab - for what proportion of future black cab journeys to/from Heathrow do you think you will pay by card?”

4.2.15 One-third stated they would expect to pay by card for all, or almost all, black cab trips to/from Heathrow One-third also stated they would pay for a few, but less than half, or none/almost none.

Table 61. Frequency of Card as Payment for Taxi Journeys from Heathrow

Frequency Percentage

All/almost all black cab journeys to/from Heathrow 36%

Most, but not all, black cab journeys to/from Heathrow 14%

Around half of all black cab journeys to/from Heathrow 18%

A few black cab journeys, but less than half to/from Heathrow 14%

None/almost none 18%

Total 100%

4.2.16 Half of respondents agreed that there should be a direct link between taximeter and card payment device; 82% agreed there should be an opportunity to leave a tip.

Table 62. Which of these features should the card payment device have?

Response Percentage agreeing

A direct link between the taxi meter and the card payment device 54%

Opportunity to leave a tip 82%



Views on Tariff Reform

4.2.17 Respondents were presented with some options for managing fares from Heathrow. Around half of respondents were supportive of a fixed fare.

Table 63. In principle, would you prefer the journey you took from the airport to your destination to have a fixed fare i.e.

one set price?

Response Percentage

Yes 46%

No 25%

Don't Know 29%

Total 100%

4.2.18 Given the choice between fixed fare and variable fare (as now), respondents were split. However, respondents were positive about the introduction of a variable fare with a cap.

Table 64. Would you prefer this journey to be fixed at this amount for every trip from Heathrow to anywhere within a 5

mile radius of your destination on the day, or that it could vary depending on traffic conditions?

Response Percentage

Fixed fare 46%

Variable fare (as now) 54%

Don't Know 0%

Total 100%

Table 65. Would you prefer there to be a fixed fare or a variable fare with an overall cap of, for example, £95?

Response Percentage

Fixed fare 32%

Variable fare with a cap 54%

Don't Know 14%

Total 100%

4.3 Supply at Heathrow

Profile of Drivers Serving Heathrow and Rationale

4.3.1 From the driver logs survey, we can assess the extent to which drivers who do not predominantly work out of Heathrow go there to drop a passenger; and, then, the proportion that queues to pick up a Heathrow fare. Just under one in ten drivers (9%) recorded pick-ups at Heathrow Airport.

4.3.2 Anecdotally it is believed that drivers picking-up at Heathrow tend to only be those that are Heathrow-dedicated (i.e. who go there at the start of their shift and will continue to return to Heathrow after dropping off their passenger rather than try to get a fare once they make their drop-off). However, analysis of the driver logs suggests that of the sixteen drivers who picked up at Heathrow at least once, only three appeared to work exclusively from Heathrow. The majority of others did a Heathrow trip for the first hiring of the day (possibly drivers who live locally to Heathrow) and continued to work in central / inner areas - unless the hiring was very local to Heathrow, in which case they subsequently picked up again at Heathrow for a hiring into central / inner London. A



number of drivers also worked one entire shift from Heathrow, then in other areas for other shifts in the week.

4.3.3 Looking at one specific Heathrow-based driver, the driver took three hirings from Heathrow over two weekend shifts; first was 50 minutes with a fare of £86, second was 50 minutes with a fare of £35 and the third was 35 minutes with a fare of £80. Another driver worked two days from Heathrow and took one fare each day, long-distance fares of £93 and £90. Looking at some examples of shifts from drivers who work a more ‘typical’ central / inner London 8-hour shift, revenue is in the region of £100 - £200 for a shift.

Table 66. Heathrow Trip Profile (based on Diary Trip Logs)

Heathrow All trips

Average fare £67 £15

Average distance 16 miles 3 miles

Average duration 1 hr 10 mins 22 mins

4.3.4 We undertook a detailed face-to-face survey with a sample of 19 drivers at Heathrow. The questionnaire used can be found in Appendix D.

4.3.5 Our dedicated survey of drivers at Heathrow Airport suggested that more than half (58%) of ‘Heathrow drivers’ solely worked during day-time hours (05:00 to 22:00), and 21% restricted their regular hours to the Tariff 1 period (05:00 to 20:00 Monday to Friday) only.

Table 67. Total typical hours worked per week

Tariff period Total number of hours worked by Heathrow drivers in a typical

week

Tariff 1 hours 839 74%



Total 1128 100%



4.3.6 Drivers at Heathrow indicated that their working patterns were most likely determined by the wish to fit around personal and family life (58%), which is a marked difference with those working in London as a whole (45%). Profitability was the primary determinant of working hours for only 11% of Heathrow drivers. As with the wider survey of drivers, habit played a significant role in determining working patterns, with 31% citing this as the main reason for their choice of working hours.

Table 68. Reasons Heathrow drivers work their chosen hours

Why do you work the hours that you do? Total

To fit around my family / private life 58%

Habit / routine 31%

When it is most profitable 11%

It's when I can access a taxi 0%

Other 0%

Total 100%

Scenario Testing

4.3.7 In response to each of the three proposed scenarios of tariff changes, the majority of Heathrow drivers indicated that they would not alter their current working pattern; but a minority would do. The results below suggest that the supply to the Heathrow market would be far more sensitive to significant fares change than London generally (though the sample is small, N=19, so results are indicative only).

Table 69. Would you change your schedule if these new tariff structure was in place?

+25% increase in Tariffs 2 & 3

+40% increase in Tariff 2

+25% increase in Tariff 1

Yes 26% 37% 32%

No 74% 63% 68%

Total 100% 100% 100%

Other changes to fares

4.3.8 Heathrow drivers were asked if they would support proposals for fixed and capped fares. Heathrow drivers are much more supportive of fixed fares to the airport (84%) compared with for journeys from the airport to Central London (47%).

Table 70. Would you support fixed fares to prevent the risk of passengers being charged a very high fare?

Fixed fare: Central London to Heathrow

Fixed fare: Heathrow from Central London

Support 84% 47%

Oppose 16% 47%

Indifferent 0% 5%

Total 100% 100%



4.3.9 Almost two-thirds (63%) of drivers indicated that they would find a proposal for capped fees for journeys from the airport to Central London acceptable.

Table 71. Would you support a capped fare to prevent the risk of passengers being charged a very high fare?

Capped fare: Heathrow to Central London

Acceptable 63%

Unacceptable 32%

Indifferent 5%

Total 100%

4.3.10 Drivers were asked whether they thought the tariff for journeys of more than six miles should be changed. The majority or participants (84%) felt that the tariff should stay at its current level. When asked if the minimum fare in London of £2.60 should be changed 58% stated that it should remain at its current level, while 42% thought that it should be increased.

Card Payment Facilities

4.3.11 All but one of the Heathrow drivers surveyed already had facilities for card payments installed in their cab9. Of those who already had card payment systems installed, 44% of these systems are linked directly to the taximeter.

4.3.12 Support and opposition in principle to the notion of payment devices being linked to taximeters was evenly split.

Table 72. Support and opposition to card machines being linked to taximeters

Do you favour linking card machines to taximeters?

Total %

Yes 47%

No 47%

Don’t Know 5%

Total 100%

4.3.13 In summary, the research evidence suggests that both drivers and passengers support either fixed or capped fares to or from Heathrow Airport.

4.3.14 Fares from Heathrow tend to be slightly higher than the customer expects (though only by around 10%); however, many of these customers are ‘price insensitive’ due to a number of factors (heavy bags; lack of information about alternatives, journey paid for by employer).

9 The other driver will have facilities in place prior to the deadline set by TfL



5. DEMAND AND SUPPLY MODELLING

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 We wanted to understand how the London taxi market (both supply and demand) would be affected by changes in the tariff structure; and how taxi drivers and passengers would react to any changes in taxi fares and hourly takings.

5.1.2 The impact on taxi driver and passenger activity from changes to the tariff system is complicated by many inter-related dimensions (including, for example the impact of changes to passenger wait time and driver ‘idle’ time) and therefore a model was developed to determine likely changes to supply (driver hours), demand (number of hirings), hourly revenue and overall fare levels.

5.1.3 The model examined the effects of tariff changes and allowed for the complex interactions between supply and demand and fare levels and waiting time using a range of different scenarios, as outlined below.

5.2 Modelled Scenarios and Results

5.2.1 There are a number of different ways taxi fares and tariffs could be changed. The following scenarios were modelled to estimate likely impacts on average fares and how demand and supply levels may change, in comparison to the current tariff structure.

Scenario 1 - Increase Minimum fare to £3. Scenario 2 - Scenario 1 + increase tariff rate in Tariff Period 1 to £3/mile (from

current £2.60). Scenario 3 - Scenario 2 + Reduce rate in T3 (to £3.50/mile from

£3.96). Scenario 4 - Scenario 2 + Reduce the long distance rate to £3/mile. Scenario 5 - Scenario 3 + Reduce the long distance rate to £3/mile + online/tel

booking charge to £4 (from £2 currently). Scenario 6 – Scenario 5 and move the long-distance threshold to 10 miles (from 6

miles). Scenario 7 - Scenario 1 + Reduce rate in T3 (to £3.50/mile from £3.96) + Reduce

the long distance rate to £3/mile and long-distance threshold to 10 miles. Scenario 8 – entirely distance based fare.



5.2.2 The results for each scenario is given, in turn, below. Scenario 1 - Increase Minimum fare to £3

5.2.3 The output suggests that an increase in the minimum fare to £3 would lead to an average fare increase of +3% and a consequential 2% drop in passenger demand. Driver hourly revenue would increase by +1% and average driver hours would increase almost negligibly (+0.01%).

Scenario 2 - Increase Minimum fare to £3 + Increase in Tariff Period 1 Rate to £3/mile (from current £2.60)

5.2.4 The £3 minimum fare and Tariff 1 increase to £3 per mile, would increase the overall fare by an average of +10%, however it would also cause a decrease in passenger demand by -7%. Driver hours would increase very slightly, by +0.2%, and total driver revenue would increase by +3%.

5.2.5 In Tariff Period 1 the overall fare is estimated to increase by +15%, attracting more drivers and therefore resulting in reduced wait times of -6%.

Scenario 3 - Increase Minimum fare to £3 + Increase in Tariff Period 1 Rate to £3/mile + Reduce rate in Tariff Period 3 (to £3.50/mile from £3.96)

5.2.6 With a £3 minimum fare, a Tariff Period 1 increase to £3 per mile and a Tariff Period 3 reduction to £3.50 per mile, the average fare would increase by +9%, and would lead to an estimated -6% drop in demand. Driver hours would increase by +0.3% and total revenue per hour would increase by +2%.

0 average change in

Proportional driver

elasticities total total total weighted weighted total total

pax trips driver hours revenue/hour fare wait time cruise time pax trips driver hours revenue/hour

Tariff 1 -9.21% 0.67% 3.77% 15.02% -5.98% 5.57% 627676 642588 13.88

Tariff 2 -2.37% 0.12% 1.04% 2.96% -0.01% 0.56% 187246 188798 5.80

Tariff 3 3.85% -1.59% -1.29% -7.21% 5.67% -5.25% 157462 121345 20.23

OVERALL -6.03% 0.26% 2.21% 8.62% -2.37% 3.13% 972383 952731 14.69



5.2.7 As with Scenario 2, fares from Tariff Period 1 increase by +15%, but fares in Tariff Period 3 decrease by -7%.

Scenario 4 - Increase Minimum fare to £3 + Increase in Tariff Period 1 Rate to £3/mile + Reduce the long distance rate to £3/mile

5.2.8 This scenario would lead to an increase in average fare of +10%; and a drop in hirings of -7%. Driver hours would increase by +0.2% and total revenue per hour would increase by +3%.

5.2.9 The average Tariff 1 fare goes up by 15%, it goes up by slightly more than 2% in Tariff 2 and slightly less than 2% on Tariff 3. These are small decreases compared to the increases from Scenario 2, implying that few people are using taxis to travel long distances

Scenario 5 - Increase Minimum fare to £3 + Increase in Tariff Period 1 Rate to £3/mile + Reduce rate in Tariff Period 3 to £3.50/mile + Reduce the long distance rate to £3/mile + online/tel booking charge to £4 (from £2 currently)

5.2.10 With a £3 minimum fare, a Tariff 1 increase to £3 per mile, a Tariff 3 reduction to £3.50 per mile, a long-distance rate of £3 per mile and a doubling of the pre-booking fee, average fares would increase by +11%, and passenger demand would fall by -7%. Drivers would work an increase of +0.3% and their total revenue per hour would increase by +3%.

5.2.11 The average fare in Tariff 1 periods has increased by +17%, in Tariff 2 periods it is up by +5% and in Tariff 3 the fare now only drops by -6%. This scenario encourages drivers to work in Tariff Periods 1 and 2.

Scenario 6 – Increase Minimum fare to £3 + Increase in Tariff Period 1 Rate to £3/mile + Reduce rate in Tariff Period 3 to £3.50/mile + Reduce the long distance rate to £3/mile + online/tel booking charge to £4 + Move the long-distance threshold to 10 miles (from 6 miles)

0 average change in

Proportional driver



Tariff 1 -9.19% 0.43% 3.89% 14.76% -5.56% 5.25% 627820 641059 13.90

Tariff 2 -2.01% -0.02% 1.22% 2.16% -0.01% 0.02% 187947 188534 5.80

Tariff 3 -2.07% -0.84% 1.24% 1.85% 0.59% -0.68% 148488 122274 20.75

OVERALL -6.81% 0.17% 2.83% 9.98% -2.80% 3.38% 964255 951867 14.78

0 average change in

Proportional driver



Tariff 1 -10.22% 0.67% 4.31% 17.26% -6.43% 6.13% 620685 642642 13.96

Tariff 2 -3.20% 0.13% 1.69% 4.58% -0.01% 0.60% 185656 188819 5.84

Tariff 3 2.93% -1.61% -0.84% -5.82% 5.18% -4.90% 156066 121318 20.32

OVERALL -6.99% 0.27% 2.75% 10.58% -2.70% 3.55% 962407 952779 14.77



5.2.12 This scenario increases the average fare by +11% and passenger demand decreases by -7%. Total driver hours increase by +0.3% and total revenue per hour increases by +3%.

Scenario 7 - Increase Minimum fare to £3 + Reduce rate in Tariff Period 3 to £3.50/mile + Reduce the long distance rate to £3/mile and Move the threshold to 10 miles

5.2.13 With a £3 minimum fare, a Tariff Period 3 reduction to £3.50 per mile and a long-distance rate of £3 per mile with a threshold of 10 miles, the average fare increases by +1% and passenger demand falls by -1%. Driver hours increase by +0.1% and driver revenue per hour increases by +0.3%. In effect, the overall consequences of this scenario is negligible on overall demand and fare levels yet, possibly, the revised structure makes taxis more competitive in markets where it has been losing out in recent years; whilst not damaging its more traditional short trip, Tariff Period 1 hirings.

Scenario 8 – entirely distance based fare

5.2.14 When only using distance to calculate fares, the average fare drops by -21% and passenger demand increases by +17%. Drivers would work an hourly reduction of -0.2% and their total revenue per hour would decrease by -7%.

5.2.15 The passengers are the beneficiaries in this scenario to the cost of the drivers as there is no income to them for the amount of time they spend in traffic. This scenario suggests that the greatest reduction in their income would be in Tariff Period 1 with a -8% decrease. There is also a -6% decrease in Tariff Period 3 and a -5% decrease in Tariff Period 2. Whilst journey times will be affected by traffic they will also be affected by traffic lights and the need to find alternative (longer) routes to keep moving, which

0 average change in

Proportional driver



Tariff 1 -10.20% 0.66% 4.29% 17.15% -6.37% 6.12% 620849 642572 13.95

Tariff 2 -3.26% 0.12% 1.68% 4.68% -0.01% 0.63% 185548 188809 5.83

Tariff 3 2.81% -1.58% -0.76% -5.47% 5.00% -4.73% 155892 121361 20.34

OVERALL -7.00% 0.27% 2.76% 10.60% -2.74% 3.57% 962288 952742 14.77

0 average change in

Proportional driver



Tariff 1 -2.44% 0.24% 0.71% 3.01% -1.55% 1.30% 674498 639896 13.48

Tariff 2 -2.12% 0.18% 1.08% 2.56% -0.01% 0.44% 187723 188907 5.79

Tariff 3 4.10% -0.79% -1.80% -7.14% 4.46% -4.17% 157839 122331 20.12

OVERALL -1.42% 0.10% 0.27% 1.04% -0.12% 0.42% 1020059 951135 14.41

0 average change in

Proportional driver



Tariff 1 18.50% -0.51% -8.12% -23.85% 15.11% -13.36% 819234 635085 12.29

Tariff 2 13.45% 0.01% -5.46% -16.58% 0.06% -8.12% 217597 188602 5.39

Tariff 3 11.82% 0.76% -5.99% -14.52% 6.00% -5.71% 169544 124240 19.26

OVERALL 16.58% -0.24% -7.16% -20.74% 12.61% -11.27% 1206375 947927 13.34



might have societal implications. It would encourage drivers to move to the less congested times - unsocial period of Tariff Period 3. The increase of +18% in passenger hirings increases wait times and reduces unproductive driver time.



6. CONSULTATION ON CARD PAYMENT DEVICES

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 As of 31 October 2016 all London taxis must have the facilities to accept card payments for journeys made within their vehicles. There are currently twelve approved suppliers of card payment facilities to the London taxi trade. Whilst some of these payment devices link directly to the taximeter, others do not.

6.1.2 TfL is considering the possibility of enforcing the need for card payment devices to link directly to the taximeter, meaning the device will automatically display the fare as depicted on the meter, rather than being entered by the driver. In order to understand the feasibility and impact of this proposal, SYSTRA have undertaken a consultation exercise with card payment and taximeter companies; in addition to collecting the views from drivers themselves and taxi passengers.

6.1.3 Card payment companies and taximeter companies were sent a predetermined list of questions, with the option to respond in writing, or over the telephone. Drivers’ views were collected as part of two surveys: one emailed out to a random sample of drivers (see Chapter 3 for more detail) and another undertaken with drivers that work predominantly at Heathrow (see Chapter 4 for more detail). Passengers’ views were collected from a panel survey to asses demand (see Chapter 2) and a small-scale Heathrow-specific survey (see Chapter 4 for details).

6.1.4 The full set of questions asked to each group can be found in Appendix E

6.2 Card Payment Companies

6.2.1 TfL approved card payment companies were reached out to, in order to collect information on:

approved card payment systems currently in use; costs to the driver of the device, including fitting and transaction costs; limitations to functionality of the device;

restrictions to linking to taximeters; and feasibility of linking to taximeters.

6.2.2 Information was collected from:

Cab:app Ltd; Cabvision Network Ltd; CMT UK Ltd; Farepay Ltd; Ingenico; Paypal; Payleven; Taxiworld; and Verifone.



6.2.3 The table below summarises the twelve currently approved card payment providers, the card payment system(s) they use and whether the system currently has the capability to link directly to the taximeter, or not.

Table 73. Card Payment Providers and Linkage to Taximeters

CARD PAYMENT PROVIDER SYSTEM(S) LINKED TO METER

Cab:app Ltd Miura M010 No

Cabvision Network Ltd Ingenico ICT 220, Ingenico IPP350

Yes

CMT UK Ltd Ingenico IPP350 Yes

Farepay Ltd Miura M010 No

Ingenico Ingenico ICT220, Ingenico IPP 350

Yes

iZettle Miura M010 No

Payleven Miura M010 No

PayPal Miura M010 No

Sherbet MT Data, Ingenico IPP350 Yes

Taxiworld Ltd Ingenico IPP350 Yes

The Payment House Miura M010 No

Verifone VTS (Vx810 or Vx820, and Vx510); Taxi-360 (Vx810 or Vx820, and Vx680)

VTS: Yes; Taxi-360: by mid-2017

6.2.4 There are very few practical limitations to any of the payment devices currently in use. Some have minimum transaction values of e.g. £500, however in practice there is no minimum value as the driver can process the fare multiple times in order to reach the correct total value. All payment solutions: accept a mix of card and cash payments; accept all major credit/debit cards; and have the functionality allowing passengers to add a tip. Refunds are managed differently by different systems; drivers themselves process refunds for Payleven, whereas the provider, or bank handles refunds for Taxiworld, Farepay, and CMT UK.

6.2.5 More details on approved card payment devices, and taximeters, can be found in Appendix F, including number of units currently in use and device costings.



6.3 Taximeter Companies

6.3.1 Taximeter companies were reached out to in order to gain information on:

taximeters currently used in London taxis; linkage between taximeters and card payment devices; feasibility of linkage; and cost of taximeter to the driver.

6.3.2 Information was collected from:

Aquila Electronics Ltd; Cabvision; Cricklewood Carriers; Digitax; HAC Megameter; Hale; and Taxiworld.

6.3.3 The table below summarises the taximeter company and meter(s) approved for use by London taxis.

Table 74. Taximeter Companies and Models in Use

TAXIMETER COMPANY TAXIMETER MODEL(S)

Aquila Electronics Ltd Aquila T2 Mk II

Cabvision Hale MCT-06

Cricklewood Carriers Viking 5

Digitax F1+ OTA Meter

HAC Megameter HAC Micro Megameter

Hale Hale MCT-06

Taxiworld Cygnus MR400, Cygnus MR400S, Lucas Taxsim

6.4 Attitudes Towards Direct Linkage between Card Payment Device & Meter

Trade Views

6.4.1 Results from the driver survey (see later sections of this chapter) and information from the card payment companies, suggest 75-85% of taxis currently have a card payment system that is linked to the taximeter. Whilst this a majority of drivers overall, six of the approved suppliers use the Miura M010 payment device/system, which does not currently have the capabilities to link to taximeters.



6.4.2 Card payment device systems that are currently linked to taximeters use devices supplied by Ingenico and Verifone, and include: Cabvision, CMT UK Ltd, Sherbet, Taxiworld and Verifone; the linkage is cabled.

6.4.3 Card payment device companies that supply an integrated payment and meter system are strongly in favour of enforced linkage. Reasons given for this are focussed on the passenger experience, including:

Increased speed of transaction (including the ability to ‘tap and go’ when using contactless);

Reduced chance of error in fare amount; Reduced change of disagreement/confusion between driver and passenger; and Greater control over choice of payment for the passenger (no need to request to

pay by card).

6.4.4 Card payment device companies offering a solution that does not link to the taximeter are unsurprisingly less in favour of an enforced linkage citing lack of benefit to passengers, potential costs and unknown feasibility as key reasons. Reasons given for lack of support included:

Drivers using a noncompliant system may be required to pay for either a new taximeter, or a new payment solution, and this may also strain the relationship between the industry and TfL;

Lack of benefit to passengers, as the meter is visible, the passenger has to approve the transaction and, if there were to be a dispute, the passenger has a receipt with the drivers’ details on;

Additional complication for drivers that want to offer fixed fares, below the meter; and

The same conditions are not being imposed on private hire vehicles, who serve the same customers and are able to operate at lower costs than taxis.

6.4.5 Taximeters that are currently linked, or have the functionality to be linked include: Hale MCT-06; F1+ OTA Meter; and Viking 5. Taximeter companies provided mixed views, with some suggesting that change to make linkage possible would not be possible, under the MID Directive; and others suggesting there is no reason why they cannot be linked – but it would be the card payment company’s responsibility to make the changes. Interestingly, one taximeter company is currently looking to develop a Bluetooth interface for the linkage purpose.

Driver Views

6.4.6 Over three-quarters of drivers surveyed (76%) that are currently accepting card payments use a system that directly links to the taximeter. Less than this, but still a majority (64%) are in favour of the principle of the taximeter being linked to the card payment device. The main reason given for this is convenience and ease for both the driver and the passenger. Other reasons given include the clarity it provides for the customer and the reduced the chance of error.

6.4.7 However, one-quarter of drivers (25%) are not in favour of card payment devices and taximeters linking. The main reason given by these drivers is the lack of flexibility this will result in, with drivers giving examples where they have given the passenger a



cheaper fare. Other concerns given by drivers not in support include: the imposition will cause additional expense to drivers; it reduces the likelihood of being given a tip; and concern that the meter may fail.

6.4.8 Drivers that work predominantly at Heathrow were less favourable overall, with about half not in support of the card payment devices and taximeter linkage. This may be due to the larger number of negotiated fares, where the meter is not used.

Passenger Views

6.4.9 Passengers are also in favour of a direct linkage between the taximeter and card payment device, with 79% indicating this is a feature they believe taxis should have. However, when passengers from Heathrow were asked the same question, just over half (54%) believed that the card payment device should directly link. This inconsistency suggests further investigation would be warranted, perhaps through qualitative discussions, as passengers may be interpreting ‘linkage’ in a number of different ways.

6.5 Feasibility of Linkage

Card Payment Companies

6.5.1 Card payment companies that responded to our request for information and do not link to a taximeter all use the Miura M010 device. The device uses Bluetooth to take payments via the driver’s smartphone. The organisations of this type, Farepay, Paypal, Cab:app, and Payleven, each responded to the idea of connecting the device differently.

6.5.2 Farepay, which have fitted approximately 300 systems for London taxi drivers, believes it is not currently feasible for the Miura M010 device to connect to the taximeter, as Bluetooth connection to the meter is not currently possible and the Miura M010 does not have the functionality to be hard wired. Farepay indicated that it may be possible to enable the F1+ OTA Meter to take Bluetooth as it has a spare port, however this information was not known about other taximeters. Another suggested solution by Farepay would be to introduce a third party piece of technology which connects the taximeter and payment device, by wired connection to the taximeter and Bluetooth connection to the payment device. An estimated cost to implement this would be around £250 per vehicle. Farepay was not able to provide a timescale, as this would depend on gaining a better understanding of taximeters currently in use.

6.5.3 PayPal does not record devices supplied to London taxis specifically, but has supplied over 1,000 devices to the industry, including minicabs. PayPal suggest that whilst it may be technically possible to connect the Miura M010 to a taximeter, this would only be if the taximeter supported Bluetooth connectivity, and an application would need to be developed to accept the feed from the meter. Costs would include upgrading to a Bluetooth taximeter in addition to the development costs of the application, which is unknown but estimated to be above £100,000. This cost could not be absorbed by PayPal, due to tight operating margins and they indicated it would have to be passed onto the driver.

6.5.4 Cab:app, which currently supplies about 350 card payment systems to London cab drivers, also indicated Bluetooth compatibility with taximeters would be key in order to



connect with the Miura M010. Cab:app suggested that the main responsibility for adaptation would lie with the manufacturers and payment service providers, however also indicated that they would have to make changes to their application, which could result in significant costs. Cab:app were not able to estimate costs or timescales as it would involve further discussions with payment partners including Miura, Westcoast, Payworks and Barclaycard.

6.5.5 Payleven, which estimates up to 200 drivers will be using their system by the end of October 2016, believes linkage between the Miura M010 device and taximeter would be technically possible, but would depend on a number of different factors. Feasibility, cost and timescale of developing a linked system would depend on the operating system that the taximeter runs on and how many different taximeters/operating systems the payment device would need to link to.

Taximeter Companies

6.5.6 Taximeter companies providing taximeters that are or can be linked had different perspectives on where the responsibility for making linkage possible lies. Cricklewood Carriers and Digitax, supplying the Viking 5 (1,500-2,000 currently in use) and F1+ OTA (5,500 currently in use) respectively, both see the responsibility being with the card payment device company. Digitax supply the software development kit with the taximeter and therefore see it is as the card payment device company’s responsibility to develop a connection that can link suitably to the meter, through their own mobile data terminal.

6.5.7 Both Digitax and HAC Megameter point out that under current legislation the taximeter cannot be tampered with by modifying software and firmware; making changes would require recalling all devices and breaking the seal on them

6.5.8 Interestingly, in contrast, Aquila Electronics (manufacturer and supplier of the Aquila T2 Mk II) are currently developing a Bluetooth interface which will allow linkage, in addition to allowing the taximeter to interface with mobile devices that host the driver applications. The Bluetooth interface will likely take a few more months until completion and costs are likely to be competitive.

6.6 Additional Considerations

6.6.1 In addition to the practical feasibility of linking card payment devices and taximeters, a number of other considerations arose.

6.6.2 Enforcing linkage between card payment devices and taximeters will mean modification to one or both devices, however legislation surrounding taximeters is strict and so amendments to Directive 77/95/EEC may need to be made in advance of any announcement. Requiring taximeters to be modified may mean many that are currently operational will need to be recalled; the cost of this would presumably lie with the taximeter company and therefore may be passed to the driver. Additionally, the linkage enforcement would also require further clarification – whether all card payment systems must link to all taximeters, or whether a linkage must be possible between a minimum of one of each device.



6.6.3 There will be a number of drivers who recently entered into minimum contract lengths with suppliers that do not provide the linkage facility. If linkage was enforced and the solution provider did not offer to amend the system, the driver may have to pay to exit the contract early.

6.6.4 Whilst many card payment solutions have the cost of the fare appearing immediately as the taximeter is stopped (e.g. Verifone), others require the need for the driver to select an option on an application before the fare is passed through to the payment device (e.g. CMT UK). TfL would need to consider if both these options provide a ‘direct link’ to the payment device, or whether the definition should mean that there is no driver input.



7. VIEWS OF STAKEHOLDERS

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 In order to better understand the nature of taxi fares and tariffs, we undertook consultation across a range of interested parties. Alongside our market research with London travellers and taxi drivers, we consulted through a mixture of telephone interviews, face-to-face meetings and email pro-formas to gather the views of other stakeholders.

7.1.2 Appendix G contains the topic guides and pro-formas used.

7.1.3 We have consulted with the following stakeholders.

Table 75. Consultation Summary

Consultee Type Consultees

Trade representatives 8

Taxi Companies: Radio Circuit 3

Taxi Companies: Apps 2

Passenger Groups 2

Suppliers and Manufacturers of Taximeters 7

Suppliers and Manufacturers of Card Payment Devices 11

Testing organisations 2

Total 36

7.2 Stakeholder Views on current industry trends Supply and demand

7.2.1 Focusing on specific periods of the day/week/year, one app company, based on their data, felt there are certain times that have more demand than supply in the London taxi market. For example, there’s not enough supply when it rains and during peak hours (first thing in morning, rush hour). Also, there’s a shortage of supply during exceptional circumstances such as tube strikes. When there is a shortage of supply, taxi drivers get most jobs from hailing on street (therefore avoiding any commissions), which is unhelpful to the app industry.

7.2.2 The app company also felt drivers’ working patterns do not necessarily reflect demand and that drivers don’t always behave in an economically rational way. As a result, they believe that increasing a tariff will not necessarily act as a stimulus to supply in certain hours. To combat this, this app company incentivises drivers to take both peak and off-peak jobs. The app company also stated that supply decreased in the past when they offered more money for weekend/night jobs in the past; their experience is that most drivers work to a ‘goal’ for a shift, e.g. £200, and will finish working once that has been made regardless of time.

7.2.3 However a trade association stated that they did not feel there are taxi shortages at any time of day. Anecdotally, trade is busiest in morning and evening peak, Friday and Saturday nights, and cultural occasions such as Ramadan which mean an influx of Middle Eastern visitors who are regular taxi users.



“I don’t think there’s anywhere where there is a shortage of cabs at all and I think any objective of our fares review should be to increase demand.”

(Trade Association)

7.2.4 It was felt by one trade association that that supply / demand differs in the suburban areas for several reason and this is an area of risk for the industry. They felt Uber is increasing competition forcing taxi drivers to seek alternative employment. Taxis are tightly controlled whereas it can take just weeks to be licenced as private hire driver, compared to years for taxis – this was also felt by a second trade association, who also pointed out the lower running costs for private hire vehicles. Likewise, there is oversupply of suburban drivers due to the shorter qualification route. The association felt All London and Suburban drivers are ‘separate industries’.

“Demand has always been low in the suburbs, it doesn’t work like central London where people put their hands up in the street as cabs are driving, in the suburbs they only work off of taxi ranks because people don’t flag them down in the street. Taxi ranks are very few and far between in the suburbs. There are more taxi ranks in Westminster than in the 22 London boroughs outside the main city area”

(Trade Association)

7.2.5 A radio circuit noted that previous concerns have been raised that ‘The Knowledge’ process acts as a barrier to new drivers being licensed and whilst they did not want to see standards lowered they felt that something should have been done to ensure that new, younger drivers were applying and becoming licensed as there is now an issue of an ageing taxi driver population in London. An app company felt the rise in minicab and competition was rooted in the training and qualification system; they feel length of time to qualify and the face to face testing method is ineffective and has resulted in the prosperity of the private hire market.

“There is no doubt that the current market is very challenging for the London taxi industry, which has not grown in line with demand, because of an over bureaucratic testing system, which has effectively stifled growth and entry to the industry”

(App Company)

7.2.6 One trade association highlighted the large number of licenced drivers - of taxis (N = 25,000) and PHVs (N = 110,000) – in recent years and feel this is an oversupply which is negatively taxi affecting drivers’ income.

7.2.7 Passenger groups highlighted the important role of taxis for those with disabilities or other impairments. Many disabled and older people use taxis as transport services are not accessible. There is however a real sense that taxis are increasingly expensive to use and so will be a last resort for some. However many people also feel that they are reliable and have the physical access to ensure people can travel safely.



Vehicles

7.2.8 The trade felt there is uncertainty over future vehicle costs with the introduction of electric vehicles. There is a concern that vehicles purchased today will not meet future requirements and then become redundant, and costs could not be recouped in that time period.

7.2.9 One trade association was concerned about the cost of vehicles; from 2018 all new taxis will have to be zero emission capable – of which there are none on the market. They expect these vehicles to have a shorter lifespan (10 years compared to 15) and be more costly. They feel the large proportion of older drivers (23% over 60, quoted by the trade association) will walk away from the taxi trade instead of having to commit to a new vehicle. The trade association feels that the benefits of the electric vehicle won’t be felt for a long time.

Private Hire Competition

7.2.10 Trade associations are particularly conscious of the competition with the private hire market, particularly Uber. However, when Uber first launched the taxi industry was initially hit, though customer base is now returning, particularly during the day. An average taxi fare during the day is about 10% more expensive than an Uber journey. Hailo and Gett (the two main taxi apps) have been largely successful and also help.

7.2.11 However, customers are returning after poor experiences with (specifically) Uber e.g. the Uber driver has got lost and they have missed a meeting. At night, taxi fares are about 30% more expensive than Uber and the customer base has not returned. Extra time on the journeys is not as important to people at night, so they will go for the cheaper fare. Two further trade associations also highlighted that the taxi service and Uber service cannot be compared as they are so different (on price and quality), and noted that taxi fares would need to be “slashed” to compete directly with Uber, though the trade associations were keen to maintain fares and quality. This gives passenger choice of a lower cost and an inferior service, or a higher cost and a quality service.

“We’re trying to compete, the highest regulated cab trade in the world against people who’ve got no regulation”

“The market is flooded with cheap substitutes that aren’t enforced or regulated, they’re allowed to work like taxis, we can’t compete with them on price as they’re subsidised”

(Trade Association)

7.2.12 In general, it was felt that Uber (or similar) were particularly problematic for night/evening tariffs:

“Tariff 3 was fabulous for years, it was a big success but now there’s a new kid on the block [Uber] who works for peanuts. The night tariff did bring the cabs out on the road, it was a fantastic success for many years.”

(Trade Association)



7.2.13 Another trade association was concerned about the regulation of private hire vehicles; they report many private hire fares being picked up on-street and poor enforcement.

“If you’ve got someone doing your job with none of your costs and the public and TfL are telling you ‘well, that’s your competition’, we’re in a rock and a hard place, the bedrock of our trade is knowledge and the vehicle.”

(Trade Association)

7.2.14 One trade association was keen to reinstate the barriers allowing fair competition (e.g. not allowing private hire vehicles to pick up on-street) and / or remove the barriers imposed on taxi drivers (including purchasing a new vehicle).

7.2.15 However, some individual taxi drivers were keen to avoid historic rivalries between All London and Suburban taxi drivers and wanted to improve the working relationship between them and TfL:

“…we are safe trustful and very competitive I guarantee we win all the work back ..Also ask TfL to please advise all London cabs to not fight with the suburban cabs - lets work together..”

(Taxi Driver)

7.2.16 A passenger group highlighted the increasing availability of apps and technology and felt that taxis need to be part of this:

“I think there .. is more than enough [supply of cabs]. Technology is changing things, a lot of people are switching to Private Hire Vehicles. It would be logical if passengers are moving to app and other type things that taxis should also offer that… I don’t think it would alter the number of taxis required, but I think it would mean that people are able to get hold of a taxi more easily and in a way that they want to.”

(Passenger Group)

Customer Base and Seasonality

7.2.17 The trade was were also keen to highlight the misconception that the taxi industry is funded by tourists. The vast majority of the business, the ‘bread and butter’ work are Londoners e.g. going to a meeting, running late etc.

7.2.18 Increased congestion and the impact of this on journey times and taxi fares was discussed by a group of trade associations. Although this is potentially deterring people from using taxis it is difficult to know at this stage what the situation with regards to congestion will be in the future as there are proposals to pedestrianise Oxford Street, ban taxis from part of Tottenham Court Road and various other schemes that all could increase congestion and journey times.

7.2.19 Another two trade associations highlighted their priority to be around reducing journey times, thus reducing prices and productivity.



7.2.20 Another trade association noted that younger people prefer private hire vehicles due to mobile apps, whereas the over 40s are more likely to use taxi. This was also reiterated by associations discussing Heathrow. They also mentioned that taxis are considered to be noisy vehicles.

Heathrow

7.2.21 Heathrow is considered to have different trends to the rest of the taxi industry. The trade associations are keen to get a better understanding of how many drivers work exclusively from Heathrow. The trades highlight the amount of ‘dead time’ associated with working at Heathrow.

“There’s a lot of dead mileage having to come back [from London].”

(Trade Association)

7.2.22 One trade association again highlighted the differences in behaviour at Heathrow, and noted that they felt it was difficult to make a living from airport jobs and suggested this may be related to the older demographic of drivers and they enjoyed the ‘social’ aspect of waiting at the feeder park. They also felt that fixed fares would not work as an overall loss may be made at certain times of the day, and felt any opposition to the card payment introduction would come from Heathrow.

“Fixed prices from the airport never going to work because it’s Planet Heathrow and because they don’t think as a collective, they think individually”

(Trade Association)

7.2.23 Two trade associations felt fixed fares from Heathrow are a realistic option, especially if it helps secure customers. They felt it should be on a zone-basis to allow for traffic conditions. It can also be managed effectively by marshals at Heathrow, whereas journeys to Heathrow from London would not be. Anecdotally, some drivers currently already agreed to fixed fares.

7.3 Stakeholder Views on current tariffs

7.3.1 Two trade associations stated that drivers are generally happy with the tariff structure.

7.3.2 One trade association highlighted how successful the previous tariff and fare review was (when the Tariff 3-4 structure was introduced), though felt that this may no longer be appropriate and the issue of ‘distance’ should be addressed:

“First thing you do when you’re in a hole is stop digging. And what we’ve got to do is stop keep pushing up these high-end prices, we’ve got to bring them in. So I would argue that any review of our tariff that needs doing needs to look at distance jobs.”

(Trade Association)



7.3.3 Conversely, the radio circuits felt that the structural changes to the tariffs in 2001 had affected taxi usage and demand in a negative way.

7.3.4 Further to this, the trade is relatively happy with Rate 1 Tariff, during the day, up to 6 miles. Tariff 2, working weekends, also about right. Tariff 3 needs to be kept on Friday and Saturday night, because that is when demand is at its highest – what keeps the taxis on the streets then.

7.3.5 An app company indicated that they believe that the current minimum fares are broadly fine, and suit the majority of customers, though passenger groups expressed concern about the transparency of the fare structure.

“The tariff structure is complicated and often hard to understand initially. It should be simplified”

(Passenger group)

7.3.6 Further to this, the association stated that some drivers say Tariff 3 is too high and that taxis cannot compete on longer journeys.

“Rate 1 increases after 6 miles, rate 3 decrease after 6 miles, I’ve never met a driver who knew that”

(Trade Association)

7.3.7 One trade association also felt that Tariff 3 was pushing people to other modes of public transport instead. Another two associations also observed that drivers are taking less long distance trips, and attributed this to the Heathrow Express competition.

“Rate 2 should be 10-15% more [than rate1] and then rate 3 should be 10-15% more than rate 2, it just doesn’t work out that way.”

(Trade Association)

7.3.8 Public awareness was also mentioned; rate changes need to be adequately advertised and likewise the tariff chart needs to be clearer. One individual driver supported removing Tariff 3 and implementing a large campaign across the Evening Standard, for example, to show ‘giving back to the public’. Likewise, two other trade associations noted that fares / tariffs are different all over the UK with no coherence. Trades representing Heathrow airport felt there was confusion about the differences between the taxi service and minicabs.

“The tariff chart in the back used to explain everything. Now it says: if you do a journey of two miles, it could cost you round about this”

(Trade Association)



7.3.9 Passenger groups were also keen that the tariff structure should be clear and easy to understand.

“If people feel that it provides value for money, that it’s easy to understand, that it’s transparent and that it’s easy to pay for…. [the current tariff structure meets these conditions] some of the time”.

“For lay people [the tariff system] can be very difficult to understand. Whereas in the private hire market people will negotiate, people who use taxis don’t know that they can negotiate the price.”

(Passenger Group)

7.3.10 Some drivers expressed concern about the impacts of fare changes on their income:

“The running costs of a London Taxi are high and measuring this against the drop in income, being a London Cab driver is becoming financially unviable. We most definitely cannot afford any drop in meter prices night or day. This year has been dreadful and I know of Cabdrivers that have now left the trade and more waiting for opportunities to leave.”

(Taxi Driver)

7.4 Stakeholder Ideas for Changes to Tariffs

7.4.1 Trade associations suggest that the long-distance rate should to be scrapped altogether, or should be moved to 12 miles (the current compellable distance). The net effect would be to reduce longer distance fares – which is the business that has been lost. A 10% increase on a £2 fare is much less noticeable than on a £100 fare. Scrapping the long-distance rate, or having it come in after 12 miles would reduce an average airport journey by £10-12, which it finds acceptable. An app company shared the view that the long-distance tariff should be reconsidered, feeling that it should decrease proportionally the longer the journey. For example, once you reach 6-10 miles, the tariff should drop by 20%, rather than increasing.

7.4.2 A second trade association felt the whole Tariff structure should be reworked, and also felt that the Tariff 1 should go to 12 miles, instead of the long-distance rate being introduced at 6 miles. They feel Tariff 1 is adequate to ‘earn a living’ and that the increase to the long-distance rate was off-putting to customers.

7.4.3 This principle was supported by two other trade groups:

“We should make the longer distances slightly more competitive (cheaper). We should balance this out by increasing the shorter journey tariff slightly”

(Trade Association)

7.4.4 It was also suggested that rate increases need to be equal to each other.



7.4.5 However, a different trade association was supportive of the long-distance rate and felt this, alongside Tariff 1, was most important. This trade association was unsupportive of reducing Tariffs 2 and 3, as this would decrease supply at night and increase competition in the day time.

7.4.6 Another association highlighted congestion as having a significant impact on fares; the proportion of time should be reduced and increase the proportion of mileage when calculating the tariff.

7.4.7 There were concerns about the effectiveness of Tariff 3, on days other than Friday and Saturday. It was suggested by a trade association that could be an argument for running Tariff 2 during the week throughout the night (Sunday to Thursday) – they would be interested as to whether such a price cut would stimulate an increase in business.

7.4.8 An app company felt some tariffs are uncompetitive and overpriced, particularly pointing towards Tariff 3. They expressed some concerns about the broader impact of this tariff, suggesting that it distorts consumers impression of the cost of taxis, with consumers generalising the expensive night time/longer journeys to all journeys (they think all journeys are too expensive even though shorter journeys in the day are as competitive as most other options and probably faster). This demonstrates the need for education on tariffs, a point also made by trade associations.

“it’s so expensive, for most people it frightens them away, particularly when you’ve got market alternatives that are significantly cheaper for those longer trips and night time trips and that’s where the industry is really hurting itself.”

(Taxi app company)

7.4.9 The radio circuits felt that Tariff 3 and the long-distance rate are too expensive and something needed to be done about these. Options to review included:

Removing them; Reducing both of them; Having the tariff for longer journeys only coming into effect at 12 miles instead of

six; Replacing the current tariffs with a daytime and night time tariff and an extra

charge when drivers work after 00:00 (midnight); and Changing the start time of Tariff 3 to midnight, changing the start time of Tariff 2

to 22:00 was also discussed.

“please remove rate 3 or reduce it by 15%”

(Taxi Driver)

7.4.10 A trade association felt the hiring charge needs to be at least £3.00, and that reductions could take place elsewhere in the tariff structure. However, another two trades said that increases in one area and decreases in others is not fair; due to driver working patterns. An app company suggested a minimum fare of £5 (covering the distance/time



of a current £5 fare); and noted that very few fares are below £5 at present in addition to a fixed rate per mile and a ‘night time’ surcharge of £1.

7.4.11 Radio circuits felt that the minimum fare could potentially be increased as this is low compared to many other cities however, whilst it was felt that changing this was an option there was concern about how it would be reported in the press and that it may result in negative publicity if it is not presented and explained correctly.

7.4.12 There were mixed views from the radio circuits on increasing the Christmas/New Year extra, though one passenger group was against the ‘extras’:

“ I don’t think [that there are any particular tariff periods working better than others], but getting rid of extras and add-ons, such as around Heathrow is important to us and also the ability of people to effectively share vehicles to reduce the cost”

(Passenger Group)

7.4.13 One association thought there should be better consideration of the alternative modes; for example, if a train journey is a lot cheaper than a taxi journey, reducing the taxi fare a bit won’t increase demand. However, there are not many alternative transport options below £15 so taxi fares could be increased as long as they stay below £15. An app company shared this opinion.

“We have to get the tariff right so that the driver can earn a decent living and that they’re paid back all the investment that they’ve made [but] there’s no point saying we’ve set something that allows the driver to make a living if nobody’s gonna get in the cab and pay for it, we need market context.”

(Taxi app company)

7.4.14 The radio circuits stated that there needs to be some form of comparison with other modes including PHVs in London to avoid ongoing increases and taxis being priced out of the market/being uncompetitive.

7.4.15 A passenger group was concerned that reducing fares implies a reduced service:

“It should probably increase a little bit, as it’s getting very close to the bus fare... Taxis should be a more bespoke service.”

(Passenger Group)

7.4.16 An app company was keen to ensure both the public and drivers benefit from any changes to fares.

“We cannot declare more vehemently, that any change to fares must be ones that deliver better value to the taxi riding public and at the same time a higher percentage or proportion of time spent hired for taxis/drivers, with more fares in the back of their cabs, so that drivers not only do not lose out, but indeed do even better. This would be a win/win for the trade and most especially for the public. “



(App Company)

Fixed Fares

7.4.17 A group of associations discussed the option of fixed fares; it was noted that fixed fares offered by, for example, Gett, are lower than the metered fare – so often these are rejected by the driver causing issues for the customer.

“There is however a majority in favour for capped fares from Heathrow to central London... This would give consumer confidence of how much a maximum fare would be whilst still helping to ensure the driver earns enough”

(Trade Association)

7.4.18 An app company indicated that it offers fixed fares; for instance £60 from London to Heathrow, and stated this had been well received by drivers and customers, but they are seeing drivers decline these jobs as they make more money working in Central London. The app company noted there are a lot of factors considered by drivers when taking a fixed-fee fare – weather, traffic, how they will get back to Central London etc.

7.4.19 The app company felt that on the whole, introducing fixed fares would be a positive, though noted there would be some drivers that dislike it and it would not be well received at certain times of day / year.

7.4.20 Another two trade associations also discussed fixed fares, highlighting that fixed fares need to be based on both time and distance. If it takes twice as long with a fixed fare, drivers will earn half as much. But if you just calculate the tariff based on time, the passenger will pay twice as much with traffic. The same association felt Heathrow was a better place for fixed fares as traffic flow is generally good. However, the fixed fare would have to be high, but Uber’s fixed price is half the cost of likely taxi fixed fare.

7.4.21 In terms of Heathrow, representatives stated drivers want extras for passengers and luggage (like they used to) to offset the high costs

7.4.22 Fixed fares to and from Heathrow should be introduced by the radio circuits, with these potentially varying by time of day. The radio circuits felt that increasing the Heathrow Extra could cause some problems, and passenger groups were opposed to extra charges.

7.4.23 Radio circuits felt that moving away from fares based on time and distance would be difficult for drivers to accept and it could detrimentally affect passengers whose journeys are not delayed as they would be charged more. It might be useful to include this in the review to rule it out or see if it is feasible.

7.4.24 Fixed fares were seen as a better proposition than capped fares. It was felt capped fares would be disruptive to drivers; particularly at Heathrow, and felt it presented a weak and “wishy-washy” message to customers, whereas they felt that fixed fares had a much stronger and impactful marketing message.

7.4.25 Passenger Groups strongly supported either fixed or capped Heathrow fares.



“This would be very welcome and [we] would definitely support the introduction of flat fares.

This would have a positive impact on disabled and older Londoners as it would mean that the cost of journeys would be much clearer.”

(Passenger group)

7.5 Stakeholder Views on the annual uplift based on the Cost Index

7.5.1 The majority of trades were overall satisfied with the use of the Cost Index, though a number of suggestions were put forward. Two trades noted that drivers themselves do not understand the Cost Index, though also stated that the drivers did a review of it in 2015.

Calculation of the Cost Index

7.5.2 One trade association felt that some elements of the Cost Index were overinflated in the past. The same association also felt that (a) insurance will be increasing due to Uber claims (b) earnings should be based on London data, not national (a second trade association also stated this) and (c) in the past, parts that were no longer being fitted in taxis were still being included, so this should be avoided. Another trade association felt costs of equipment to enable wheelchair access and VAT costs should be included.

7.5.3 One association also requested clarity on why the increases are in April, rather than January, as per other TfL modes.

7.5.4 Another trade association also found issue with the insurance cost; the Cost Index implied a decrease but in reality most were experiencing an increase. This association was also mindful of including electricity for the introduction of electric taxis, and for card payment equipment.

“The tariff increase has worked pretty well over the last four years… so you could say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

(Trade Association)

7.5.5 It was also highlighted by one trade association that there is a lack of understanding on how much it costs to run current taxi models, and the Cost Index is based on an old vehicle no longer in service. The trade stated that neither drivers nor TfL have reliable data on the costs of running a vehicle. The trade association was also concerned about the cost of the electric vehicles; the cost is designed to be offset by the fuels savings but in reality this is not the case due to cost of repairs and parts, and another expressed concern about a sudden ‘price hike’ in 2018 to reflect this, and how this is managed. An app company also expressed reservations about the accuracy of the model’s costs and components, in particular that it does not allow for changes over time (e.g. petrol prices), does not adequately consider how marketable the industry is compared to alternatives, doesn’t consider variable driver costs (some work 80 hours a week, some 20) and nor does it take vehicle depreciation into account.



7.5.6 A group of trade associations also expressed concern that the card payment roll out is not reflected in the Cost Index; thus it should include the initial capital outlay for the equipment, and ongoing year-on-year increases for the equipment.

7.5.7 There were some concerns about its failure to take into account the wider market which taxis operate within. Radio circuits indicated that they were concerned that it does not reflect competition from alternatives and public preferences, a view echoed by an app company which felt that the balance of factors taken into account needs to be overhauled.

“The weightings should be 40% customer input, 40% cost base and 20% competitiveness”

(Taxi app company)

Application of the Cost Index

7.5.8 The most important factor for many stakeholders was that however the Cost Index was agreed it is not applied at a percentage increase across all fares.

“The key issue for us is whatever cost index is used, is that we direct the fare increases much more specifically than we have so previously… it’s distorted our more expensive fares beyond recognition.”

(Trade Association)

7.5.9 One trade was particularly keen that the Cost Index be applied on a variable basis to take account of elasticities of demand:

“We consider this to be vital to customer satisfaction and the well-being of our trade. Increasing demand means increased customer satisfaction and that is surely the aim of TfL and the taxi trade. A variably applied tariff change should accomplish this end.”

(Trade Association)

7.5.10 One trade association expressed dissatisfaction on the application of the Cost Index; suggesting that the 2016 increase of 1.6% and in many cases reflected a decrease, due to changes to Tariff 3 and the long-distance rate (referred below as ‘Rate 4’).

“Rate 4 is an integral part of the tariff. Reducing the proportion of fares affected by the change to R4 reduces the tariff overall. To maintain the integrity of the Cost Index, we feel there should have been a corresponding increase elsewhere on the tariff to compensate this loss. As this did not happen, the general increase did not amount to 1.6%.”

(Trade Association)



7.6 Stakeholder Views on card payment devices

7.6.1 Views on the introduction of card payment devices appeared to vary between different organisations, particularly trade associations. The overall impression is that it will be impossible to please everyone with the implementation, though in general it is something customers and drivers are supportive of.

7.6.2 One trade association believes the card payment changes will help the industry from October – many people do not carry cash and that puts them off using a taxi, though other associations highlight some problems.

“In today’s society, customers expect to pay by credit card”

(Trade Association)

“I do think there is quite a lot of reluctance by the taxi trade to embrace things which are beneficial to customers, to embrace new technology, new methods of payment and to be generally more accountable to passengers.. for example the ability to pay by credit card or debit card, smarts tickets and contactless.”

(Passenger Group)

Risks

7.6.3 One trade association highlighted the potential pitfalls of having the payment device in the passenger compartment. Firstly, there is no guarantee there is money on the card at the start of the journey (therefore a risk of not being paid); drivers will be unable to take a ‘deposit’ for stopping during a journey (e.g. a customer wants to go into a shop) as they normally would, and thirdly safety concerns – there may be a need for the taxi driver to go into the back of a taxi to assist with the card payment machine. Therefore, the card machine should always be in the front or mounted on a swivel.

“You’re a female driver and you’ve got 3 or 4 chaps in the back that are a bit intoxicated and are having problems putting the card in the machine, the taxi driver never ever gets in the back of a taxi when there’s a customer in there. [It should be] in the front of the cab or have a cut out and put the machine on a swivel.”

(Trade Association)

7.6.4 Another trade association also found problems with the system. It will create a ‘cash flow’ problem for drivers. Staff working for card payment companies do not work the weekends – but taxi drivers need their money to be processed. Having to introduce a different system could mess up drivers’ finances, causing cash flow problems.



“[Working Friday to Sunday] where they would do some credit card, some cash, if that goes to all credit cards, even with a good provider you might not get your money till Wednesday.”

(Trade Association)

7.6.5 Passenger groups also highlighted the issue of safety;

“Safety within the vehicle, accountability, for example we are trying to get TfL to make vehicle and driver identity to be made mandatory in vehicles, the ability to complain.”

(Passenger Group)

Practicalities

7.6.6 One trade association said that about 75% have got some sort of credit card system in place. All Radio Circuit drivers have card facilities. Problem is with having fixed machines in the cabs – especially for those that rent.

“The problem they’ve created is that nearly everybody out here had a hand-held machine, TfL have now said, that’s not good, it’s got to be fitted in the back. This creates a lot of problems for blokes who rent cabs because unless your garage has got the same machine in every one of his cabs… whereas before it was your machine, you just took it with ya.”

(Trade Association)

7.6.7 Another trade association felt that the more organisations supplying these services the better – more competition. The same association also felt that wired-in devices are easier to use, likewise better to be linked to a meter. However, another two associations felt a linked device is not necessary as both taxi meter and card payment device are visible. There were some mixed views but on the whole (who) felt a receipt printer is not necessary as it can be written down as before when needed. Two trade associations felt there should be more flexibility on the requirements, and clarity on systems authorised, to find solutions that fit the devices / set up they already have.



“They [TfL] should look for solutions that already fit their [drivers’] devices.”

(Trade Association)

7.6.8 The same association also had a preferences for devices that ask ‘how much do you want to tip’, rather than ‘do you want to tip’ – tend to get a 10% tip, which then covers the cost of processing the card payment.

7.6.9 An app company echoed the sentiments from some trade associations regarding the desire for TfL to be less prescriptive about the technical requirements of card payment systems. It stated that they consider many ‘traditional’ card payment devices in taxis outdated, incorporating facilities that many consumers do not consider necessary, for instance being capable of providing printed receipts. Instead it felt that TfL should allow the market to be determined by consumer preferences in card payment systems, rather than imposing an approach on the industry. The app company felt the linkage between taximeters and card payment devices needed further consideration due to the cost it would impose on drivers.

7.6.10 One trade association felt the timescales were not achievable; one supplier they were working with has requested an extension. This trade association also had concerns about enforcement; stating they expect some drivers to say they cannot take cards, and also felt that having licences revoked for this would be unfair.

7.6.11 As an alternative, one association felt the taxi trade should be permitted to use Hailo (for example) for payment, and another noted that Bluetooth links with taximeters should be acceptable – and from experience this was generally acceptable to customers.

Surcharges

7.6.12 All associations had concerns about the changes to surcharges, with particular reference to Heathrow.

7.6.13 Average fare from Heathrow to London tends to be about £70. Drivers are charged between 3 and 4% for passengers that use credit cards – which works out at about £2-3 on every journey. They make about three journeys a day, which works out at about £10 a day. The situation is different at Heathrow because drivers are making fewer, higher value jobs.

7.6.14 The average credit/debit card ride in town is about £21, whereas the average credit/debit card ride out of Heathrow is about £75-80. The problem arose when they took the credit surcharge off the passenger and left it to the driver to source the credit card payment system, which varies between 2.7% to 10%. The driver then does not get the metered fare, and some credit card companies takes the percentage of the tip as well. There was a strong feeling that drivers will be losing a lot of money.

7.6.15 A group of trade associations felt that the ‘Heathrow Extra’ charge should be increased to reflect this issue; though a passenger group disagreed.



“You get charged an extra to go to Heathrow, we think that all fares should be transparent, you shouldn’t have hidden extras added on… we would want those extras abolished.”

(Passenger Group)

7.6.16 Some also felt that many of their journeys (some estimate 95%) are being paid by company accounts. So it’s not the passenger that saved the card payment percentage, it is a large corporation.

“It’s these multi million pound companies are going to benefit by us paying, not the punter… That makes us a lot different from in town I think.”

“We’re the only service industry that actually pays to provide the service with the credit card.”

(Trade Association)

7.6.17 On a more general basis, associations felt concerned that the cost of card payments have been effectively transferred to the driver, from the card user, and two separate associations highlighted that they are the only business having to pay the charges directly.

7.7 Additional Stakeholder Comments

7.7.1 Several trade associations expressed frustration that TfL do large advertising campaigns to encourage people to use the tube and buses, taking no account of the taxi industry. People are then misled, because if in a group it is cheaper to travel by taxi; for example, an advert for Heathrow Express was placed by a taxi rank stating that train is cheaper – when in reality, a taxi is cheaper in a group. Similarly, a group of associations noted that 2012 was a difficult year - the taxi was used to sell the Olympics to the world but was then barred from going into the Olympic stadium site.



8. REVIEW OF THE COST INDEX MODEL

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 This chapter is in four main parts. Firstly, we review the method and structure of the index. We then compare the London approach with other jurisdictions and compare London taxi costs now with historical evidence. Third, we assess and comment on the individual components of the London index; and then examine how the uplift should be applied each year.

8.2 A Review of the Method

Cost indexing

8.2.1 The main model used for regulating taxi fares in many jurisdictions around the world is cost indexing. The approach is used in Australian states, Canadian cities, Ireland, and British cities such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester, as well as London. A cost index seeks to measure the change in the costs of providing services over a particular period and to allow prices to increase to match the change in costs.

8.2.2 A cost index comprises:

a set of cost items relevant for the industry; a weight attached to each cost item; a method to measure the change in costs for each cost item; and (sometimes) a productivity measure.

8.2.3 Cost indices are widely used because they avoid the difficult issue of measuring the appropriate level of taxi fares and instead seek to change fares through time on some rational basis. That said, best practice entails a periodic fundamental appraisal of the components, assumptions and methodology employed in the index construction, validating the various cost components through a rebasing of the index through examining the costs directly rather than adjusting annually or biennially for inflation.

8.2.4 A typical model for determining cost, presented in Cooper, Mundy and Nelson (2010) includes:

Vehicle cost depreciation; Vehicle purchase cost; Maintenance cost (servicing and parts); Licence/permit costs and other infrastructure, e.g. radio; Operating costs (fuel, etc.); and Driver earnings.

(adapted from Cooper at al.)

8.2.5 Many UK authorities increase taxi fares relatively, by applying an increase in costs to a previous tariff rather than using absolute costs to determine the tariff ab initio. This has the advantage that those costs which fluctuate over time, such as fuel (which goes up as well as down) can be smoothed out. Also, particular cost elements which are forecast to change can be incorporated in advance of costs actually being incurred, for example the introduction of card readers.



Complexity of the index

8.2.6 The simplest form of index can be calculated from the sum of two component parts, operating costs and labour costs , in a formula as follows:

CHANGE Index = CHANGE Costs + CHANGE Earnings Source: Halcrow, 2013

8.2.7 By using government or similar data, such as the AA cost of motoring and the Average Earnings Index respectively, annual or other periodic changes to costs can be calculated and applied in whole or in part to the existing tariffs. An even simpler version exists whereby taxi tariffs are changed in line with a more general measure of consumer price inflation (in Britain, that means CPI or RPI, the latter soon to disappear from the list of official statistics), although to be valid over the longer term, it requires that motoring costs and wages both change in line with general price inflation.

8.2.8 More usually, a more specific approach is adopted. In British Columbia, for example, the index has four cost components: wages, taxi insurance, fuel and other costs (Consumer Price Index). These are weighted to reflect the average cost of operating a taxi. The BC Passenger Transportation Board regards this relatively simple approach to have the following advantages:

Taxi companies and drivers generally view TCI as a good and fair way to make periodic rate increases;

British Columbia’s four TCI components are comparable with other jurisdictions and include typical taxi operating expenses;

TCI calculations and component weightings are straight forward and easy to understand from a lay person’s point of view;

TCI data is relevant to the types of costs incurred to operate taxis in British Columbia;

TCI data is obtained from third-party, objective sources; The use of objective, relevant data gives taxi companies and consumers a level

playing field where reasonable rate increases can be expected to remain commensurate with cost increases;

Stakeholders view the TCI request process as simple, easy to understand and practical; and

From an administrative perspective, the TCI process does not overwhelm staff at the Passenger Transportation Board.

Source: adapted from Passenger Transportation Board (2013).

8.2.9 While more complex markets may have requirements for a more granular treatment of different costs, the above represents a possible checklist against which to assess any particular regime. For comparative purposes, it is also possible to reduce a more complex index to this simpler form in order to assess the reasonableness of the outcome of a more complex process.

8.2.10 A more granular approach still was recommended by Halcrow (2013) for use in Aberdeen, being similar to approaches used in big British cities outside London, such as Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh:

Vehicle Costs (inc. Vehicle Excise Duty);



Parts; Tyres; Insurance; Servicing costs; Fuel; Licence fees; and Average Earnings (inc NI).

8.2.11 Social costs and the cost of the knowledge were excluded from this index in line with other UK authorities outside of London.

8.2.12 The most detailed indexes, as used in Ireland (National Transport Authority (2014)), many parts of Australia (Centre for International Economics (2012), PWC (2013), and London are similar in construction. The following section on International Comparisons presents summary figures and elaborates on the detail of potentially relevant differences in calculation. Here, we present the main elements of the construction of the indexes for comparison purposes.

8.2.13 Note that in Ireland, the approach is applied across the whole Republic; but some 60% or so of taxis (approximately 10,600 in 2014) are Dublin-based. Our understanding is that what happens in Dublin, and what is needed in Dublin, is the main determinant of regulatory policy. In New South Wales, the precise calculation is different in urban and rural areas. Urban areas, which is what we have presented here, include Sydney Metropolitan Area which, with a population of 4.6 million, is the major conurbation and again is a market whose needs have a major influence on regulatory decisions.

Table 76. Index Components

COMPONENT OF INDEX LONDON IRELAND QUEENSLAND NEW STH WALES

Vehicle Cost √ √ √ √

Parts √ √ √ (√)

Tyres √ √

Garage & Servicing √

Garage & Servicing - Labour √ √ √ √

Fuel √ √ √ √

Insurance √ √ √ √

Cleaning √ √ √

Road tax, testing and licensing (√) √

Equipment (radio, metering) (√) √ √



COMPONENT OF INDEX LONDON IRELAND QUEENSLAND NEW STH WALES

Miscellaneous √ √ √ √ inc network

fees

The Knowledge √

Social costs √

Wages √ √ √

√ - included directly; (√) – included explicitly in another heading

8.2.14 With the exception of items which do not apply in London, specifically the cost of leasing a plate in jurisdictions where there is a limit on the number of vehicle licences issued, the only major element which seems not to appear in the London index is a wages cost for operators (as opposed to drivers). As we understand it, such an element would be included indirectly in any fees paid by drivers (or owners) to a radio network and, as such, to include a separate item runs the risk of double-counting. Such costs can be a significant fraction of overall costs. Nevertheless, if fees paid to circuits have not been changing significantly differently from other cost elements, then the impact on changes in costs of omitting this item would be limited. For the future, including such a Network cost in the determination of base costs and subsequently applying annual uplifts in line with wages should be considered.

8.2.15 This brief review has shown that the London cost index is at least comparable, and in some aspects, more detailed than what seems to be best practice elsewhere. We have been restricted to countries where the documentation is in English, but are not aware that other world cities in developed countries have pursued materially more detailed or sophisticated analysis.



8.3 Comparison with other places and times

International comparisons

8.3.1 We have above established that the method used in London is comparable with some other jurisdictions and can be aggregated to allow comparison with other (less granular) cities. We here present selected comparisons.

Table 77. Weights in selected cost indexes

COMPONENT OF INDEX

LONDON INTERIM

2017

IRELAND 2014, HIGH

MILEAGE

QUEENSLAND 2013

NEW STH WALES

2011 URBAN WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE

TAXI

MANCHESTER 2007

EDINBURGH 2013

Vehicle Cost 10.2 7.1 7.5 9.8 14.4 10.4

Parts 4.2 1.3 7.8 6.4 18.3

Tyres 0.6 1.5 0.9

Garage & Servicing

0.6

Garage & Servicing - Labour

2.0 2.8 5.3 6.2 inc parts

1.9 4.5

Fuel 8.1 10.3 9.6 13.5 9.2 16.2

Insurance 5.6 4.3 8.7 12.1 9.5 8.4

Cleaning 1.7 1.1 2.7

Road tax, test/licensing

0.9

Equipment (radio, metering)

11.9 5.8 7.3

Miscellaneous 1.0 0.7 4.4 1.0 1.8

The Knowledge 5.4

Social costs 2.8

Wages 59.5 57.5 50.0 48.4 56.6 40.5



8.3.2 Given that, uniquely these jurisdictions, London has strict vehicle type controls, it is not surprising that vehicle costs are higher. In fact, they are comparable to that part of the NSW fleet which is wheelchair accessible. (NSW can calculate costs separately for wheelchair accessible taxis (WAT) and non-WAT. Up to 2011, tariff changes were based on cost changes for standard taxis. It is now open to them to average these according to the fleet mix, although it is not clear whether in fact that is yet done.) Similarly, given the tightness of the labour market in London compared with most cities, it is not surprising that wages form a larger share of costs. Manchester is probably the closest to London as a ‘type’ of taxi market; the figures from there are broadly consistent with London. Edinburgh’s figures for parts and fuel seem very high, and labour’s share is rather low. We have found no particular reason for this to be so; but we note that Edinburgh was preparing to move away from the cost index approach and simply revise fares in line with CPI. All in all, there is nothing in these figures to suggest that the London approach is causing inappropriate cost increases to be applied.

8.3.3 We can also compare London with other jurisdictions at a more aggregate level. If we define costs as Fixed (incurred if participating in the market but not variable with mileage, calculated on an annual basis), Variable (with mileage) and Labour, then again we see that London is not generally significantly out of line with other places, especially once we allow for the higher labour costs. So the balance between fixed and variable costs is broadly similar across all the cases we have looked at. The main difference appears to be very high radio costs/payments to circuit operator in, especially, NSW and Nashville.

Table 78. Fixed, Variable & Labour Weights

COST CATEGORY

LONDON 2014

IRELAND 2014

QUEENSLAND 2013

NSW 2011

NEW YORK 2005

NASHVILLE 2012

MANCHESTER 2007

EDINBURGH 2013

Fixed 23.4 26.6 27.3 31.9 19.0 + X

30.7 25.0 20.5

Variable 17.4 15.9 22.7 19.7 24.0 - X

18.4 18.4 39.0

Labour 59.3 57.5 50.0 48.4 57.0 50.9 56.6 40.5

8.3.4 X – New York classification not on same basis. Fixed costs in our terms are at least 19%, but vehicle costs (X) have been included in variable costs.

8.3.5 For the above analysis, the Knowledge costs have been included within Fixed costs.



Historical comparisons

8.3.6 It is also instructive to compare present-day London costs with historic costs. The Stamp Commission report (1968) and an analysis by Doganis and Lowe (1975) examined non-labour costs, although with slightly different classifications, reported in Toner (1990).

Table 79. Comparison of Non-Labour Costs

COST CATEGORY

STAMP 1968

DOGANIS & LOWE 1975

INTERIM 2017 WEIGHTS

MANCHESTER 1979

Fixed Costs

Depreciation and interest

20.0 26.5 25.2 21.0

Insurance, meter rents, licences, holiday relief

14.0 15.8 13.8 25.2

Garaging 5.0 - 1.5 3.3

Overheads 8.0 - 9.4 4.5

Fixed subtotal

47.0 42.3 49.9 54.0

Variable costs

Fuel and oil 20.0 36.0 20.0 25.2

Maintenance and repair

33.0 7.5 15.3 17.4

Tyres - 3.0 1.5 3.5

Variable subtotal

53.0 46.5 36.8 46.0

Knowledge costs

Subtotal - 11.2 13.3



8.3.7 If we standardise the earlier costings and allow for labour costs also, then:

Table 80. Standardising Cost Categories

COST CATEGORY

STAMP 1968 DOGANIS & LOWE 1975

INTERIM 2017 WEIGHTS

MANCHESTER 1979

Fixed 15.6 14.1 20.2 24.0

Variable 20.9 20.8 14.9 20.5

Knowledge 4.5 4.2 5.4

Wages 59.1 60.9 59.5 55.5

8.3.8 The obvious change over time has been a rebalancing between fixed and variable costs. This is for two main reasons. Firstly, the cost of fuel has fallen in real terms over time. In the 1975 study, the fuel element reflects the 1974 oil crisis and the subsequent – and temporary – large increase in fuel costs. The second major change has been the increase in the number of London taxi drivers that work for a radio circuit, since the cost index was first established. That could account for at least a two percentage point switch, and possibly up to 4 points, from variable costs to fixed costs. Thus, it would seem that the current London analysis of costs for calculating a Taxi Cost Index produces outcomes which would be expected given known changes in the external and operating environment but is otherwise consistent with both current international evidence and historic London evidence.

8.4 Individual elements of the index – assessment and commentary

Vehicle Cost

8.4.1 Taxi buying behaviour is multi-faceted. There are many financial models open to an owner, including a hire-purchase deal, a lease arrangement or a straight loan repayment. Owners also have to consider whether to buy/lease new or second-hand. Moreover, there exists a choice of different vehicles for use as taxis although on 2015 data, the TX4 E6 and the Vito have very similar new purchase prices.

8.4.2 The current approach of estimating whole life costs for a range of vehicle types and a range of acquisition/disposal strategies seems sound. Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester have used eight years as the life for a purpose built vehicle (Halcrow, (2013)) so perhaps consideration should be given to whether a shorter life than 12 years should be used. That said, we understand that a higher annual mileage is used in the calculations elsewhere; certainly, Manchester historically used 28,000 miles, but also 40,000 miles to reflect that some cabs were double-shifted, and in Ireland, 17,400 miles and 39,000 miles (approximately) are used (although, of course, in Ireland they do not apply the Metropolitan Conditions of Fitness, so saloon cars are used). The issue of what



annual mileage to use also impacts, of course, on other per-mile costs and affects the balance between fixed and variable costs. If the evidence for using 22,000 miles as a base is secure, then a lower average annual mileage in London coupled with the very high maintenance standards required can be expected to allow vehicles to remain in use for more years than in other cities.

8.4.3 Evidence on the proportions of vehicles conforming to each of the four acquisition/disposal strategies currently included in the model would make the approach more robust. For example, if substantially less than 25% of owners are pursuing strategy 2 (buy new and dispose after 4 years), then the estimated average costs across the whole fleet will be somewhat overstated. Weighting the strategies by the historic proportions would improve the accuracy of the calculation, although this is not without difficulty especially for Vitos, since we have not yet passed through a full life-cycle of Vitos. It would be useful to analyse purchase and disposal information for Vitos to see if the tested strategies remain accurate.

8.4.4 Overall, though, the approach recognises the variety of acquisition strategies and the costs associated with different vehicles. It will be straightforward to amend the calculation process as the proportion of Vito taxis increases and also to allow for the coming on stream of zero emission capable (ZEC) vehicles. Although the purchase cost of these is as yet unknown, application of the existing principles will be a suitable way to address the issue.

Parts

8.4.5 The cost of replacement of parts is difficult to estimate, since the parts required will be related to the annual mileage, the accrued lifetime mileage (which may be proxied by the age of the vehicle), the make and model of the vehicle, and general upkeep. This has been less of a problem up to now with the relatively homogeneous fleet; but as the fleet mix changes, so repair costs can be expected to change. As ZEC vehicles enter the fleet, the cost of batteries will need to be included. It is likely that an approach which calculates all the relevant costs (purchase/leasing and running) for a set of prototypical vehicles and then combines those into a single figure according to the proportions of the fleet made up by those prototypes (in a way analogous to the current practice for acquisition costs) will be appropriate.

8.4.6 According to Halcrow (2013), both Edinburgh and Glasgow price a sample of parts on an annual basis. Since they operate 100% purpose-built fleets, a similar approach could be considered in London. That said, it is likely sufficient to undertake such a detailed analysis every few years as part of a rebasing/validation exercise for the whole index and in between times to apply either ONS (current practice) or AA running costs evidence (www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/index.html). We have no reason to prefer one source of data over the other.

Tyres

8.4.7 The AA website says that front tyres should expect to last a minimum of 20,000 miles and rear tyres twice that. This implies at least 4 front and 2 rear tyres per 40,000 miles; or, over the long run, at 2,000 miles a year, roughly 3 new tyres per year. Given that there is a range of sources of tyres at different prices, it would be inappropriate just to base the cost on LTC’s recommendations and prices. So dealing with tyres as part of the

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/index.html



general motoring costs uplift seems appropriate year-by-year, as long as there is periodic checking and, if necessary, rebasing of the index.

Garage & Servicing – Premises and Labour

8.4.8 These elements of the index represent the cost of undertaking any repair work on the vehicle. Once again, data are available from ONS (current practice) and the AA. We have no preference for one source of data over the other.

Fuel

8.4.9 Currently, fuel costs are sourced from the AA’s motoring running cost tables. A 3-month average (October to December) is compared year-on-year. We think this is flawed. The values obtained should be based on an average cost for diesel fuel throughout the year. This makes the value less susceptible to periodic dramatic changes in fuel prices that may occur on a seasonal basis. Hypothetically, suppose fuel costs rose 10% in January 2014 and, in September 2014, fell back to the original figure and remain there till the end of the year. In January 2015, suppose fuel prices rose 20% and then, in September 2015, fell back to the original level. An index comparing Oct-Dec 2015 with Oct-Dec 2014 would say there had been no increase in fuel cost. If, in fact, the January increase was ALWAYS 10%, that would not matter, yearly total expenditure would be the same in both years. But given the nature of prices in the fuel market, and since the AA produces monthly figures, we recommend comparing a 12 month period with the previous twelve months. If there is substantial monthly variation in the mileage of the typical cab, the monthly fuel costs should be weighted by the proportion of annual miles in that month.

Insurance

8.4.10 In the absence of detailed annual evidence on the cost of insurance, it is appropriate to the ONS RPI figure for ‘motor expenditure: vehicle tax and insurance’ (DOCV).

Miscellaneous

8.4.11 The testing and licence fees are set by TfL, so it is appropriate to include the coming year fees in the total cost calculation and then calculate a per mile cost.

The Knowledge and Social Costs

8.4.12 The cost of acquiring the Knowledge is substantial. The fees paid to a Knowledge school, the cost of submitting for examination and appearance, and the time required to learn the runs are legitimate expenses – indeed, investments – and should rightly be recouped by successful applicants. Our concern is how the yearly figure has been calculated. If the basis of calculation is correct, then annual uplifting in line with wages is appropriate, since the school fees are in large part to pay for the teachers, and the individual’s time is an opportunity cost of wages in another sector foregone. (This is as long as the TfL fees rise similarly and do not change significantly as a proportion of the overall Knowledge cost.) The key issue is how this total cost should be defrayed over a career. It seems to us that this needs information on how many years full time equivalent a passed driver will expect to work. Alternatively, the Knowledge element of the cost index could be regarded as a return on the driver’s investment; but the correct estimation of the appropriate return would then be subject to interest rates and returns on investment in



the wider economy. The first method, seeking to defray the costs over a typical career is, we think, preferable. But we are not able to judge whether this is in fact done.

8.4.13 The SDG Review of the Taxi Cost Index in 2005 stated “We have also not been able to obtain any figures on the length of career for drivers. We are therefore not able to conduct robust analysis on the calculation of the [Knowledge] costs at this point.” (section 6.35). This remains the case. The current annual valuation of the Knowledge of about £2850 defrayed over 10 years amounts to approximately 90% of a year’s average earnings. As long as this figure is reasonable, then uprating by annual earnings is an appropriate way of updating the index.

8.4.14 On Social costs, the SDG report notes that these make up a relatively small part of the index. We understand that this component attempts to compensate for the cost of having to work unsociable hours. It is unclear to us whether this is already compensated by higher tariffs at unsociable hours. To understand that, we would need to know whether the 22,000 miles on which the cost index is based are assumed to be daytime only or a ‘standard’ mix of daytime and unsociable hours. If the annual operating costs for an average cab of some £52,500 are designed to be covered by daytime working for 22,000 miles a year, then in principle tariff 3 already compensates for unsociable hours by requiring only some 14,500 miles to be driven per year (assuming the same occupancy ratio at night as in the daytime).

Driver earnings

8.4.15 We understand that Average National Earnings uplift derived from figures published by the Office of National Statistics in their Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings statistical bulletin is used. As with other elements of the index, as long as the base is appropriate, use of an official, consistent index is appropriate - there is, though, a case for adopting ONS’ figures for the London region rather than the national figures. We are unsure why a three month average is compared year-on-year; if earnings are not a random walk (unlike fuel prices), then any one point in year t, say October, can be compared with October in year t-1.

8.4.16 There is a question of whether to use mean or median wages. The larger the data set used – and whole economy ASHE is very large indeed – then the less important this becomes unless there is rapidly widening inequality in earnings. The less aggregate the data used, the more we prefer the median as a typical measure, since it is less influenced by outliers. At national level, there is relatively little difference between trends in the mean and trends in the median. For more disaggregated measures, it is usually the median which is reported.

8.4.17 We compared the growth in gross median weekly earnings between 1997 and 2014 to see what difference it would make if a different series were used to apply annual uplifts to the index. Relative to median gross weekly earnings All industries and services, which we think is the closest series to that currently used which is also comparable with others, we found that:

8.4.18 Using Transport, storage and communication (SIC 2003) or Transportation and Storage (SIC 2007) as an alternate would have led to a lower uplift than actually applied in five years, a higher uplift than actually applied in seven years, and almost no difference in the others. Over the period, all wages have risen by 61.3% and Transport wages by



62.7%. Given the starting point, if transport wages are uplifted by general wage rises rather than what actually happened to transport wages, then the worker is 0.9% worse off in 2014. Of course, in the intervening years, there are cases where the general uplift is better for the worker.

8.4.19 We also examined the growth in median London wages compared with the whole economy. In most years, earnings in London rose faster than in the whole economy. Because of the cumulative effect, applying a London uplift to the base whole economy earnings would have resulted in higher earnings each year of between 2.3% and 4.4%. Applying a London uplift for the whole period instead of the whole economy uplift would have increased 2014 earnings by 2.4%.

8.4.20 We also examined the growth in median South East wages compared with the whole economy. In more than half the years, earnings in South East rose faster than in the whole economy. Because of the cumulative effect, applying a South East uplift to the base whole economy earnings would have resulted in higher earnings some years of up to 3.7%. Applying a South East uplift for the whole period instead of the whole economy uplift would have increased 2014 earnings by 0.8%. However, to demonstrate how the choice of start and end of the series can affect the figures, we report that applying an uplift using South East wage inflation instead of whole economy wage inflation over the period 1997 to 2014 would have increased 2013 wages by 0.02% relative to the outturn.

8.4.21 It seems from this that there is no real sustained difference between South East and Whole Economy measures of earnings increase. There is no reason to use a transport-focussed series instead of the whole economy series. The only issue is whether London wage uplifts are a better reflection of labour costs in the London taxi industry than whole economy wage uplifts. It seems to us that as long as the overall index is recalibrated every few years, using whole economy uplifts on an annual basis in the interim is unlikely to be distorting.

8.5 APPLYING THE COST INDEX TO DIFFERENT TARIFFS

Should the Agreed Annual Uplift always apply to all hirings consistently?

8.5.1 London is relatively unusual for built-up areas in that It has a mileage rate which increases for longer journeys within the area in which a licensed taxi can ply for hire. (London is not unique, though: Leeds has a similar provision). This structure has developed in recognition of the fact that, say, a driver who takes a fare from the centre to a destination 10 miles out is relatively unlikely to pick up a fare back to where the driver chooses to work and is, essentially, compensation for increased proportionate and actual dead mileage typically associated with longer trips. In many areas, this issue is dealt with by making journeys beyond the district licensing area boundary not compellable and by agreement only – although some authorities do specify maximum fares for such journeys, either at meter rate or enhanced.

8.5.2 It seems to us that as long as the enhanced mileage rate does indeed cover extra dead mileage appropriately, then uplifting this element of the tariff in line with general uplifts is the desired approach; cost-compensation price-setting is philosophical basis behind an index approach.



8.6 Should the Agreed Annual Uplift always Apply to Fixed and Variable Aspects?

8.6.1 Another question is whether to apply uplifts to both the drop and the unit mileage. Given meter technology, the drop can be changed either by keeping the distance for the initial hiring constant and increasing the price; or by keeping the price constant and reducing the distance travelled until the meter starts to increment. We understand that, in practice, a combination of approaches is used. So if, initially, a charge of £2 is made for the first 500 metres or part thereof and the meter can increment in units of 20 pence, then a general increase of 5% could be applied either by reducing the initial distance to 476 metres OR by increasing the drop to £2.20 and increasing the initial distance to 524 metres.

8.6.2 It seems to us that the answer lies on the demand side rather than the cost side. If there is evidence that the balance between long and short distance trips is distorted by an incorrect balance between drop and mileage rate – which might be too many short hirings even if a driver has had a long wait for a fare - then the elements should be rebalanced. Other than that, there seems no reason not to uprate both drop and mileage tariff according to the formula.

8.6.3 The balance between daytime and night-time fares can be dealt with similarly. For simplicity, we consider here just Tariff 1 and Tariff 3. The question cannot be addressed solely with reference to the cost side. If Tariff 1 is designed to cover the costs of a cab and driver which operates 22,000 miles in a year during the daytime, and Tariff 3 to cover c14,500 miles of operation a year at night; or if Tariff 1 and Tariff 3 together are designed to cover the total annual costs of a taxi operating an average mix of daytime and night-time miles, then it is appropriate to apply changes to all parts of the tariff if the underlying demand conditions remain unchanged.

8.6.4 Note that the balance between demand, prices and availability of taxis may be different in daytime compared with night-time. If the current relativities of Tariffs 1 and 3 reflect that and those conditions continue, then, once more, the conclusion is to apply the same uplift to all parts of the tariff.

8.6.5 However, there may be external changes which affect the workings of the market at any particular time and which may alter the optimal balance between Tariff 1 and Tariff 3. The Night Tube can be expected to reduce demand for longer distance trips where customers can now take the tube instead. This has implications for design of an optimal night-time tariff which are not easy to establish. A reduced demand of, hypothetically, 30% would require a less than 30% reduction in supply in order to keep service quality constant (a 30% reduction in supply would entail a reduction in service quality), and so with a greater proportion of dead mileage/time, an increased (occupied) mileage tariff would be necessary for the finances to stack up. But that would in itself have further depressing impacts on demand.

8.6.6 It does seem that the London night-time supplement is at the upper range of those found in British cities and towns. The running mileage rate is 52.6% higher in Tariff 3 than in Tariff 1. That compares with 33% in Manchester and 13% in Birmingham. In Edinburgh and Glasgow, night-time hirings attract an extra charge of £1 on the drop, with the mileage rate unaltered. This is a 14% supplement for a 3 mile trip in Glasgow. Historically, there was something of a North-South split on this, with Home Counties



towns likely to have higher night-time supplements. We note the Guildford and Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, for example, have a 50% supplement per running mile.

8.7 Summary

8.7.1 It is clear to us that the current method of applying annual uplifts to various components differentially remains the best way of ensuring that year-to-year cost variations are dealt with in a fair and economic manner. This ‘variable weight methodology’, whereby weights change from year to year in accordance with changes in expenditure, seems to us to be preferable to fixing weights until the next full recalibration/reconstruction. This is, after all, the fundamental basis of RPI and CPI. That said, periodic reconstruction of the whole index should be undertaken as a revalidation exercise to ensure ongoing fitness for purpose. This has the advantage of also allowing new cost categories or changes in practice to be readily incorporated.

Table 81. Sources of Index Information

COMPONENT OF INDEX

LONDON INTERIM 2017 DATA SOURCE AND RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLIFTING

Vehicle Cost 10.2 As now, but revise fleet mix and age assumptions in line with evidence on acquisition/disposal of Vitos. Adapt further as ZEC vehicles come onstream.

Parts 4.2 As now, using ONS series, but revise as ZEC vehicles come onstream

Tyres 0.6 As now, using ONS series

Garage & Servicing

0.6 As now, using ONS series

Garage & Servicing - Labour

2.0 As now, using ONS series

Fuel 8.1 Calculate change on average prices across a whole calendar year compared with the previous calendar year. In this way, compensation is expenditure-based.

Insurance 5.6 As now, using ONS series

Miscellaneous 1.0 Update in line with TfL fees

The Knowledge 5.4 Consider if the current annual allowance is appropriate. If it is, or is made so, revise in line with annual earnings.

Network costs Not currently included. At the next rebasing of the whole index, estimate annual costs and include. Subsequent revisions in line with average earnings unless there is also significant



COMPONENT OF INDEX

LONDON INTERIM 2017 DATA SOURCE AND RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLIFTING

technological change.

Social costs 2.8 Exclude this as long as the night time tariff is planned to compensate unsociable hours of work.

Wages 59.5 As now, using whole economy annual earnings data. Consider using London-specific data if the supply of drivers becomes tight.



9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Summary of Key Findings in relation to Possible Tariff Change

9.1.1 There is a considerable volume of information reported in the previous chapters and, below, we distil what we consider to be the main performance indicators of existing supply and demand for London taxis, and views of stakeholders. This has helped shape our view of how the current market is operating (and, hence, whether the existing tariff structure and cost index model is fit-for-purpose), and driven our recommendations for tariff regime change.

9.1.2 From the evidence collected in this study, there is concern amongst the taxi trade that the industry must remain competitive, whilst ensuring that drivers’ livelihoods are maintained; and that passengers’ needs continue to be met. Our data collection and analysis shows that:

the position, within the market, of the London taxi lies below the luxury private-hire vehicle offering (e.g. UberLux) and above all non-luxury services (i.e. standard private-hire, other car hire and public transport), and we do not recommend a change to this market positioning;

the taxi offering is most competitive for short-distance taxi trips (i.e. 1-3 miles), especially those that are hailed on-street where only taxis can serve this aspect of the market;

the taxi offering is less competitive for longer distances (say 6+ miles), and not very competitive at all beyond say 12 miles, though it is remarked that it never has been competitive over a long distance and this is probably not a large nor profitable market area for the taxi trade;

the taxi offering at night is also less competitive now, due to the increased availability of the private-hire vehicle alternative and more recently the introduction of Night Tubes on some routes. This means that the higher night-time tariff, designed to encourage drivers to work unsocial periods to meet the demands of London’s night-time economy, must be re-assessed;

in broad terms, the taxi market is understood to be fairly elastic - with passengers voting with their feet in response to a significant fare increase (and, to a lesser extent, wait time changes - where taxi appears to out-perform private hire according to London travellers); and, conversely, making more taxi journeys in response to significant fare decreases;

levels of ‘unproductive time’, amongst drivers when working, is very high – often spending more than half of each ‘working hour’ available for hire;

taxi drivers earnings arise from a combination of average fares, unproductive time and the fixed and variable costs of being a taxi driver. Care needs to be taken in setting maximum fares as the balance between fares and unproductive time will directly drive earnings. Also driver earnings will be influenced by the different ways that taxi drivers work, especially between drivers waiting at ranks for customers to come to them, and those actively pursuing numerous channels to



access customers (i.e. through on-street circulation and/or accessing advanced-booking via telephone or smartphone apps);

the Heathrow market (especially from Heathrow into London) has suffered from improvements in public transport to/from the airport. The number of cabs going through the feeder park has declined since the introduction of the Heathrow Express service, and the introduction of Crossrail services serving the City and Canary Wharf will inevitably add to the competition. However, our evidence suggests that the majority of taxi passengers now are likely to be captive to taxi, and the existing service seems to meet passengers’ and drivers’ needs; and

access to the taxi and private hire market through new technology, primarily smartphone apps, is evolving quickly, influencing both customer access to journey opportunities, but also the supply of drivers and their affiliations.

9.1.3 These overall findings are, generally, consistent with the sentiments of many within the trade and with passenger groups, according to views expressed within our consultation with key consultee groups.

9.1.4 Our review of the Cost Index Model, as a means of determining the increase in supply costs attributable each year to act as a basis for each year’s annual tariff uplift, suggests that the approach (components and weights) adopted to date are broadly sound, but there is a case for including card payment costs, and considering adopting London-based (rather than national) indices where suitable, going forward.

9.2 Recommendations

9.2.1 The overall premise of the following recommendations is our understanding that the outcome wanted by TfL ultimately is one that achieves the optimum position regarding:

ensuring the London taxi service meets the needs of travellers in London in the short, medium and long-term, in line with its ambitions for all modes within its suite of public transport services and road-based responsibilities;

maximising London taxi use and passenger satisfaction;

maintaining motivation of London taxi drivers, and ensuring they have satisfactory financial reward for their operations, in part to maintain quality standards both of vehicles and driver standards; and

assisting the taxi trade to maintain a suitable competitive position within the overall taxi/private-hire/luxury car hire market.

9.2.2 Bearing in mind the competitive environment in which London Taxis now operate, we recommend that TfL consider, for wider consultation, changes at a more strategic, as well as at a detailed, level as follows.

Strategic Recommendations

9.2.3 The taxi-private-hire market has changed considerably over the past decade (and may well do so further), and it is appropriate for TfL, and the trade in general, to (re)consider the regulatory framework in which the London Taxi service operates.



9.2.4 Through no deficiency of TfL or the trade, the London Taxi service’s competitive advantage is being eroded. In particular, the available use of satellite navigation has considerably reduced the practical journey time and efficiency advantage of the taxi driver’s Knowledge; and the hail-on-street portion of the overall market (for which taxis have a monopoly) is in a decline that is likely to continue with the advent of increasingly available alternative, legitimate technology-based ways of hiring all taxi/private-hire vehicles. It should also be noted that on-street hailing still provides the means for more than half of all taxi hirings, and is the trade’s most significant unique selling point, and needs to be protected. The night-time taxi market has particularly suffered through increased competition from the versatile private-hire trade through app bookings and customised service offerings, and the higher night-time taxi tariff (Tariff 3), that was effective in increasing supply at times when there was unmet demand for taxis now seems increasingly uncompetitive. The opening of the Night Tube service is likely to exacerbate the problem.

9.2.5 It is the lack of flexibility in tariffs to allow taxis to better exploit those niches where they are strong (such as short distance, central London, on-street hailing), and the constraints on the trade’s ability to respond to market fluctuations (due to the prescribed nature of the taxi fare rates) that we think most harms its ability to compete moving forward.

9.2.6 In principle, there are at least three options open to TfL and the trade:

no fundamental change to the tariff structure;

a fully deregulated fare system for advance bookings; or

some changes to enable more flexible pricing in response to fluctuating demand temporarily (and, possibly, spatially).

9.2.7 We advocate the consideration of a lighter touch regarding the app side of the market, rather than a fundamental change in regulatory control. In subsequent sections of this chapter, we propose specific changes to the tariff structure that we think will help the taxi trade compete but a one-size (or three-sizes, to be more accurate) fits all does not enable the trade to be as responsive as it needs to be to compete with the fluctuating prices of many of its rivals. Currently, the tariff structure covers all types of taxi hiring, and we recommend that TfL consults with stakeholders on the possibility of a more customised pricing regime for app-based hirings in future – perhaps allowing a substantially higher variable rate during times of known (and agreed) high demand periods that could help offset lower fares at more competitive times and/or places. Under a more flexible pricing structure, there would be even greater need for the regulator to ensure that passengers were protected from any market push towards excessive fares.

9.2.8 If there was appetite for this amongst the trade, then our suggestion is that it would be the non-hailed part of the taxi market that requires a more flexible pricing regime, as this is the (increasing) part of the market where the taxi trade is struggling to compete. Moreover, there are already signs that some elements of the taxi trade is informally offering more customised services, via apps such as Hailo, Gett and Taxiapp, and this could become more formalised. This could lead to the development of a much more detailed, and customised app-based, taxi tariff structure that would respond far more



flexibly to the ebbs and flows of demand and supply on a daily, indeed hourly, basis just as many private-hire vehicle apps do currently.

Tariff Change Recommendations for Consideration

9.2.9 We consider that the taxi trade would benefit from a change in the tariff rate for some areas of the market; but do not recommend a fundamental change of structure. Our tentative recommendations are mindful of recent changes in the offering of the nearest alternatives to taxi, in particular, the effective minimum cash fare for a Tube ticket (£4.90); and the vulnerability/captiveness of certain sectors of the market.

9.2.10 We recommend the following changes in the existing tariff rates and structure:

increase the minimum fare from £2.60 (current) to over and above inflation to a level to be set in consultation with the industry between £3 and £4, potentially with a corresponding change in the initial travel distance included in the minimum fare (i.e. the current minimum fare of £2.60 includes 247.8m of travel free of further charge).

Tariff Periods 1 and 2: extend the distance tariff threshold from 6 miles to now cover hirings up to 10-12 miles;

Tariff Period 3: reduce from £3.96 per mile (current) to £3.50 per mile and extending the distance tariff threshold for journeys now up to 10-12 miles; and a corresponding change to the fare per minute reducing the rate from £0.68 to £0.60 per minute.

Long distance tariff: increase from £3.70 per mile (current) to at least £3.50 per mile for journeys now over 10-12 miles; and the corresponding change to the fare per minute reducing the rate from £0.64 to £0.60 per minute.

9.2.11 Our modelling of changes in taxi supply and demand following the above tariff changes estimate a broadly constant overall impact on average fares and passenger hirings; but would introduce a small increase in the fixed fare which we think passengers will be insensitive to, and would also decrease fares at night-time which would help retain taxis’ share of the overall market at these unsocial times.

9.2.12 We recommend that the threshold at which the long distance rate would kick-in would be lengthened to, for example, 10-12 miles. This alongside a reduction in the long-distance tariff will reduce the overall price of all long-distance hirings, again with the aim of making taxis more competitive and increasing the utilisation of taxi (which we have found to be relatively low). The suggested tariff rate of £3.50 per mile could be reduced further in the medium term to attempt to increase utilisation further if feedback from drivers suggests this mechanism is helpful in the currently relatively small market segment.

9.2.13 We also consider that there may be substantial merit in the following further revision to the current tariff structure.

Tariff Period 1: increase from £2.60 per mile (current) to £3 per mile and extending the distance tariff threshold for journeys now up to 10-12 miles; and a



corresponding change to the fare per minute increasing the rate from £0.45 to £0.52 per minute.

9.2.14 This would have the effect of increasing fares (and driver revenues) for short taxi journeys where, our evidence has shown, that passengers can stand the fare increase. We have conflicting evidence on the effect of a fare increase in Tariff Period 1 – on the one-hand our traveller survey suggests demand would increase if fares went down (but most of this ‘potential demand’ would only materialise if fares decreased substantially below any realistic price reduction), whilst our profile of passengers who hire taxis at this time suggests that they would be relatively unresponsive to a modest fares increase.

9.2.15 From our overall analysis, we are of the view that:

Changing Tariff 2 would not be in the interests of the taxi trade. There was some compelling evidence to support increasing Tariff 2, in particular that there appears to be considerable unmet demand in this period (due to lack of taxis according to our traveller survey) and there would be a significant driver response to a revenue per hour increase during this period (according to our survey of drivers). However, our analysis of existing taxi driver hirings (according to driver logs) indicates considerable levels of non-hired time for drivers already working at these times, so more drivers does not seem to be the solution – rather better linking of potential passengers with available drivers (perhaps through the further development of taxi apps).

Changing the measure to a fully distance-based tariff with no time-based component would not be in the interests of the taxi trade or passengers in the medium or long-term. It is clear that there would be some significant winners and losers for specific hirings depending on levels of congestion, hence times of day, and any major changes in revenue per hour for drivers would result in significant shifts in operational hours to those periods when drivers would be the ‘winners’, leaving few drivers operating at times when passengers would be the ‘winners’. Such a market would not, ultimately, serve passengers or drivers very well. Overall, this would be a significant change in the market dynamic, and we do not think there is evidence to support such a major shift in fares strategy.

Heathrow Market

9.2.16 We recognise that the ‘Heathrow market’ is special and warrants a unique approach to fare setting. Many passengers are unfamiliar with how to access all the options available from the airport into central London, with many simply seeking a quick, reliable and secure means of airport to hotel travel for the travel group and all their baggage; whilst most Heathrow taxi drivers are dedicated to work from there and regularly wait several hours for their often sole hiring of the morning/afternoon etc. Moreover, our surveys of Heathrow taxi passengers and drivers both indicate support for a fixed or capped fare, in principle.

9.2.17 We recommend introducing two types of fare for the Heathrow market, varying by direction in line with our consultation responses; a fixed fare outbound from central London to Heathrow, and a variable but capped fare for journeys inbound from the airport to Central London. Introducing a fixed fare at Heathrow for all trips from ‘central London’, but perhaps not in the other direction, could be in the interests of both



passengers and the taxi trade. Passengers and drivers were reasonably supportive of the idea, and the added confidence it would give passengers would be positive for the market. We consider the nature of demand at Heathrow to be relatively inelastic (i.e. many passengers are not familiar with the alternatives, have numerous bags and/or expect the fare to be in excess of £70) so the current regime could be maintained.

9.2.18 Our recommendation is for the following revision to the tariff from Central London to Heathrow.

setting the fixed fare at broadly the average fare for Central London to Heathrow currently (in the region of £65 according to our research evidence); and

consider a two-tier fixed price that has a higher fixed fare at peak times (such as £85) to reflect the longer time taken by the driver.

9.2.19 This recognises the need to avoid three figure (£100+) fares for passengers in very congested traffic, whilst ensuring that drivers still have motivation to work during the more congested times.

9.2.20 We recommend that the journey in the other direction (Heathrow to Central London) is not the subject of a fixed tariff regime; though a cap (of, for example, £85) should apply to protect passengers.

9.2.21 Journeys between Heathrow and non-central London should retain the existing tariff regime.

Additional and Supplementary Charges

9.2.22 We suggest retaining the zero charges for luggage or additional passengers; indeed the cost of taxi fares when shared between passengers can be very competitive against public transport, especially for short distance journeys.

9.2.23 Similarly we suggest retaining the zero charge for card payments, although we do note that there is increasing use in some sectors of credit card fees being levied on purchases (including public transport and other travel tickets), suggesting that a review of this position sometime before the next Taxi Tariffs review may be useful.

9.2.24 We recommend retaining the potential for a metered phone and internet booking surcharge of up to £2, with the expectation that such surcharges will be part of the competitive delivery market driven by smartphone apps and so may, or may not, be levied depending on the booking route or supplier.

9.2.25 We also recommend retaining the Christmas and New Year surcharge, but do not have enough evidence for this limited time slot as to whether demand and supply mismatches could point to an increasing surcharge. A market review of the charges of the private hire sector, especially the app-driven providers, would point to the potential for either retaining or increasing this premium.

9.2.26 The soiling charge of up to £40 is intended to provide some recompense for drivers requiring their vehicle to be taken out of service for cleaning is inadequate for this purpose. We feel that the maximum soiling charge should be increased to in the region of £60, to provide recompense for lost time and the actual costs of (potentially deep)



cleaning, but also to act as a deterrent. A figure of £60 is in the range of penalty fare charges on public transport in London (£80, or £40 for early payment).

9.2.27 We consider that the method of application of each year’s agreed uplift is appropriate. Any significant re-positioning of the tariff to better reflect the nature of supply and demand should be made by direct modification of the tariff structure rather than frequent, marginal changes to the tariff rates via annual small ‘tweaks’.

Recommendations on Card Payment Devices

9.2.28 The majority of payment systems currently installed within London taxis do provide an integrated card payment and taximeter system, however a significant minority do not. Whilst, undoubtedly, solutions can be found to link currently non-linked systems, there will be a cost involved and neither taximeter, nor card payment device companies, will look to absorb that cost. Attempting to pass on this cost to drivers will likely lead to them changing their supplier, which could mean smaller suppliers that currently conform to all of TfL’s requirements, but cannot if linkage was enforced, being put out of business.

9.2.29 If TfL decide to mandate the linkage between card payment devices and taximeter, it would seem prudent to suggest a deadline three years from 31 October 2016, as drivers that have had systems installed that are currently unable to comply will likely be free of any contract by this point. Additionally, TfL may wish to consider compensating drivers who paid an initial, upfront cost, for a system that was compliant at the time of purchase, if the system provider is not offering a solution to link with the taximeter; or compensation for a taximeter from a manufacturer/supplier not upgrading their connectivity (e.g. via Bluetooth), preventing the desired direct connection being possible.

SYSTRA provides advice on transport, to central, regional and local government, agencies, developers, operators and financiers.

A diverse group of results-oriented people, we are part of a strong team of professionals worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real people in the real world.

For more information visit www.systra.co.uk

Abu Dhabi AS Business Centre, First Floor, Suites 201-213, Al Ain Road, Umm al Nar, P.O. Box 129865, Abu Dhabi, UAE T: +971 2 558 3809 F: +971 2 558 9961

Birmingham 5th Floor, Lancaster House, Newhall St, Birmingham, B3 1NQ T: +44 (0)121 233 7680 F: +44 (0)121 233 7681

Dublin 2nd Floor, Riverview House, 21-23 City Quay Dublin 2,Ireland T: +353 (0)1 542 6000 F: +353 (0)1 542 6001

Edinburgh Prospect House, 5 Thistle Street, Edinburgh EH2 1DF United Kingdom T: +44 (0)131 220 6966

Glasgow Seventh Floor, 124 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5HF United Kingdom T: +44 (0)141 225 4400

Lille 86 Boulevard Carnot, 59000 Lille, France T: +33 (0)3 74 07 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01

London Seventh Floor, 15 Old Bailey London EC4M 7EF United Kingdom T: +44 (0)20 7529 6500 F: +44 (0)20 3427 6274

Lyon 11, rue de la République, 69001 Lyon, France T: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 29 F: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 28

Manchester 25th Floor, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza Manchester M1 4BT United Kingdom T: +44 (0)161 236 0282 F: +44 (0)161 236 0095

Marseille 76, rue de la République, 13002 Marseille, France T: +33 (0)4 91 37 35 15 F: +33 (0)4 91 91 90 14

Newcastle PO Box 438, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE3 9BT United Kingdom T: +44 (0)191 2136157

Paris 72 rue Henry Farman, 75015 Paris, France T: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01

Woking Dukes Court, Duke Street Woking, Surrey GU21 5BH United Kingdom T: +44 (0)1483 728051 F: +44 (0)1483 755207

Hong Kong 14th Floor West, Warwick House, TaiKoo Place, 979 King's Road, Island East, Hong Kong T: +852 2529 7037 F: +852 2527 8490

Shenzhen Room 905, Excellence Mansion, No.98, No.1 Fuhua Road,

Futian Central Zone, Shenzhen, PRC, Post Code：518048

T：+86 755 3336 1898 F：+86 755 3336 2060

Shenzhen - Beijing Branch Office Room 1503, Block C, He Qiao Mansion, No. 8 Guanghua Road,

Chaoyang District, Beijing, PRC, Post Code：100026

T：+86 10 8557 0116 F：+86 10 8557 0126

Beijing Joint Venture Room 1507, Main Building, No. 60, Nan Li Shi Road,

Xi Cheng District, Beijing, PRC, Post Code：100045

T：+86 10 8807 3718 F：+86 10 6804 3744

Mumbai Antriksh, Unit no. 301, 3rd Floor, CTS Nos. 773, 773/1 to 7, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East , Mumbai 400069 T: +91 22 2647 3134 B 307, Great Eastern Summit Sector - 15, CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai - 400 614 T: +91 22 2757 2745

New Delhi 5th Floor Guru Angad Bhawan, 71 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 T: +91 11 2641 3310

Noida 3/F, C-131, Sector 2, Noida-201301, U.P. T: +91 120 432 6999

Singapore 25 Seah Street #04-01 Singapore 188381

T：+65 6227 3252 F：+65 6423 0178

Thailand 37th Floor, Unit F, Payatai Plaza Building,128/404-405 Payathai Road, Rajthewee, Bangkok 10400, Thailand

T：+662 216 6652 F：+662 216 6651

Vietnam 5/F Perfect Building, Le Thi Hong Gam St, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

T：+84 8 3821 7183 F：+84 8 3821 6967

Appendix A – Traveller Survey

UPN: 44361043

Wave: 1

SURVEY NAME: London Travellers

SURVEY LENGTH (MINS): 15-20 minutes

TYPE OF PROJECT:

Full Service Project (VOP) – specify with or without resume

SAMPLE SOURCE/COUNTRY/DETAILS:

COUNTRY LANGUAGE(S) SOURCE(S)

UK English VOP, EROP, NEC, NEC CANVASS, PL

REQUIREMENTS QUESTION NUMBERS/ NOTE

OPEN-ENDS (CHA)

PERSONAL IDENTIFIABLE INFO NO

DEVICES ALLOWED Desktop / Tablet / Mobile:

Mobile Calculator Score

ADVANCED IMAGE/VIDEO SECURITY NO

CONJOINT N/A

ALGORITHM N/A

MAX DIFF N/A

OTHER COMPLEX SET UP Q16a / Q16b – ensure correct piping for options A-D

AUTO SPEEDER CHECKS ENABLE

ONLINE REPORTING LINK REQUIREMENTS: AS QUOTAS BELOW IF NOT SPECIFIED

QUOTAS:

dLondon Actual (100%) Overage (+5%)

1. London 1200 1260

2. Non- London 300 315

VERSION/ DATE/ COLOUR OF AMENDS:

V1.7 - 16.08.15 / V1.8 – 18.08.16 / V1.9 – 19.08.16 / V.10 – 25/8/16 /V.11 – 7/9/16 /v12 8/9/16

London Taxi Study

Traveller Survey

Script for online survey

Screener

S1. Which of the following have you done in the past 6 months? [multiple choice, randomise

order]

1. Travelled within London (including by foot) [CONTINUE]

2. Travelled to a UK airport [SCREEN OUT]

3. Travelled to a UK train station [SCREEN OUT]

4. Travelled abroad [SCREEN OUT]

Section A: Demographics

[start time]

Firstly, some questions about you, to help us analyse the results of this survey. All your answers will

be kept strictly confidential and anonymous.

D1. Which of these age groups do you fall into?

Less than 18……………1 (terminate) 45-59 ……………………………………… 4

18-24 ……………………………………… 2 60-64 ……………………………………… 5

25-44 ……………………………………… 3 65+ ………………………….…………….. 6

D2. Which of the following best describes your annual household income?

1. Under £10,000

2. £10,000 to £19,999

3. £20,000 to £29,999

4. £30,000 to £39,999

5. £40,000 to £49,999

6. £50,000 +

D3. Please indicate to which occupational group you belong to, or which group fits you best.

If you are retired and have an occupational pension please answer for your most recent occupation.

If you are not in paid employment but have been out of work for less than 6 months, please answer

for your most recent occupation. (Please select one answer)

1) Semi or unskilled manual work

(e.g. Manual workers, all apprentices to be skilled trades, Caretaker, Park keeper,non-HGV driver, shop assistant)

2) Skilled manual worker

(e.g. Skilled Bricklayer, Carpenter, Plumber, Painter, Bus/ Ambulance Driver, HGVdriver, AA patrolman, pub/bar worker, etc.)

3) Supervisory or clerical/ junior managerial/ professional/ administrative

(e.g. Office worker, Student Doctor, Foreman with 25+ employees, salesperson, etc.)

4) Intermediate managerial/ professional/ administrative

(e.g. Newly qualified (under 3 years) doctor, Solicitor, Board director smallorganisation, middle manager in large organisation, principle officer in civilservice/local government)

5) Higher managerial/ professional/ administrative

(e.g. Established doctor, Solicitor, Board Director in a large organisation (200+employees, top level civil servant/public service employee))

6) Student

7) Casual worker – not in permanent employment

8) Housewife/ Homemaker

9) Retired and living on state pension

10) Unemployed or not working due to long-term sickness

D4. Gender

1. Male

2. Female

D5. Where is your (main) home?

1. In London

2. In UK outside London

3. Outside UK

dLondon: DUMMY USED FOR QUOTA PURPOSES FROM D5.

1. LONDON – IF D5 IS CODE 1

2. NON-LONDON – IF D5 IS CODE 2 OR 3

[only ask if D5 = 2]

D6. Have you travelled within London (including by foot) in the past month?

1. Yes

2. No

Section B: Trips made by Black Cab or Minicab

Please note that throughout the questionnaire we use the word “black cab” to refer to these

types of vehicle (see picture). The black cab has a distinctive shape with a “TAXI” sign on top

which lights up when it is available for hire. Most black cabs are black and have this classic

shape but there are some newer ones which have a different shape. Black cabs can be hailed

on the street or at black cab ranks.

The word “minicab” to refers to these types of vehicle (see picture). Minicabs are normally

saloon cars or people carriers, they do not have a “TAXI” light or taximeter and must be

booked through a licensed company either by phone, in an office, by email, or by mobile app.

[Start time]

Q1a. How many journeys by black cab have you made within London in the past month?

……….. journeys [Numeric box, range 0-100]

[if Q1a=0]

Q1ax1. How many journeys by black cab have you made within London in the past 6 months?

………… journeys [Numeric box, range 0-100]

Q1b. How many journeys by minicab have you made within London in the past month?


[if Q1b=0]

Q1bx1. How many journeys by minicab have you made within London in the past 6 months?

………… journeys

[Scripting instructions: ask below, regarding most recent journey if Q1a>0 OR Q1ax1>0]

Please think back to your most recent black cab journey:

Q2ax1. Day of the week [dropdown]

1. Monday

2. Tuesday

3. Wednesday

4. Thursday

5. Friday

6. Saturday

7. Sunday

Q2ax2. Method of hire (please select one)

1. Black cab rank

2. Hailed on the street

3. Mobile phone app

4. Booked by phone

5. Booked by email

6. Other (please specify)

Q2ax3. Approximate wait time (if 30 seconds, write 0.5 minutes) [Numeric box, range 0-120] PN:

write minutes next to OENUM text box

Q2ax4. Time trip began …… (please enter in 24 hour clock format) [Numeric range, 4 digit validity

using 24 hour clock. If outside 24 hours then show error]

Q2ax5. Total time in black cab (if 30 seconds, write 0.5 minutes) [Numeric box, range 0-240] PN:


Q2ax6. Trip purpose (please select one)

1. Entertainment

2. To/from usual workplace

3. Business trip

4. Tourism

5. To/from school/college/university

6. Shopping

7. Collect/deliver items

8. Accompany somebody/collect somebody


Q2ax8. Group size (including yourself) [Numeric box, range 1-5]

Q2ax9. Approximate cost of the journey [Numeric box, range 1-100] PN: show £ before OENUM text

box

Q2ax10. Ultimately, who paid? (please select one)

1. Myself

2. Relative/friend

3. Company


Q2ax11. Reason for choosing black cab (please select all that apply) [multiple choice]

1. Door-to-door

2. Quick

3. Could pay by card

4. Convenient

5. Affordable

6. Company arranged

7. My preferred choice was unavailable (please specify preferred choice)


Q2ax12. Using the map provided, please select the area where your journey started:

Click here to enlarge the map

1. 1-5

2. 6

3. 7

4. 8

5. 9

6. 10

7. 11

8. 12

9. 13

10. 14

[if 1-5 show central London map and Q2a_13]

Q2ax13. Please select the area where your journey started:


1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

Q2ax14. If you know it, please provide the first part of the postcode of where your journey

started:

………………………………………………………………………………… [open-ended response]

Q2ax15. Using the map provided, please select your area of destination:


1. 1-5

2. 6

3. 7

4. 8postocde

5. 9

6. 10

7. 11

8. 12

9. 13

10. 14


Q2ax16. Please select your area of destination:


1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5


ended:


[Scripting instructions: ask below, regarding second most recent journey if Q1a>1 OR Q1ax1>1

Please think back to your second most recent black cab journey:

Q2ax1. Day of the week [dropdown]

1. Monday

2. Tuesday

3. Wednesday

4. Thursday

5. Friday

6. Saturday

7. Sunday

8. Can’t remember

Q2ax2. Method of hire (please select one)

1. Black cab rank

2. Hailed on the street

3. Mobile phone app

4. Booked by phone

5. Booked by email

7. Can’t remember


Q2ax3. Approximate wait time (if 30 seconds, write 0.5 minutes) [Numeric box, range 0-120] [insert

below ‘Can’t remember’ tick box] PN: write minutes next to OENUM text box

Q2ax4. Time trip began (please enter in 24 hour clock format) [Numeric range, 4 digit validity]

[insert below ‘Can’t remember’ tick box]

Q2ax5. Total time in black cab (if 30 seconds, write 0.5 minutes) [Numeric box, range 0-240] [insert

below ‘Can’t remember’ tick box] PN: write minutes next to OENUM text box

Q2ax6. Trip purpose (please select one)

1. Entertainment


3. Business trip

4. Tourism


6. Shopping



9. Can’t remember


Q2ax8. Group size (including yourself) [Numeric box, range 1-5] [insert below ‘Can’t remember’ tick

box]

Q2ax9. Approximate cost of the journey [Numeric box, range 1-100] [insert below ‘Can’t remember’

tick box]

Q2ax10. Ultimately, who paid? (please select one)

1. Myself

2. Relative/friend

3. Company


Q2ax11. Reason for choosing black cab (please select all that apply) [multiple choice]

1. Door-to-door

2. Quick


4. Convenient

5. Affordable

6. Company arranged


8. Can’t remember


Q2ax12. Please use the map to select where your journey started:


1. 1-5

2. 6

3. 7

4. 8

5. 9

6. 10

7. 11

8. 12

9. 13

10. 14

11. Can’t remember


Q2ax13. Please select where your journey started:


1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

6. Can’t remember


started:


Q2ax15. Please use the map to select your area of destination:


1. 1-5

2. 6

3. 7

4. 8

5. 9

6. 10

7. 11

8. 12

9. 13

10. 14



Q2ax16. Please select your area of destination:


1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

6. Can’t remember


ended:


[Ask if Q1b=>0 or Q1b_1=>0, otherwise, skip to Q3]

Please think back to your most recent minicab journey:

Q2bx1. Day of the week [dropdown]

1. Monday

2. Tuesday

3. Wednesday

4. Thursday

5. Friday

6. Saturday

7. Sunday

Q2bx2. Method of hire (please select one)

1. Booked using mobile phone app

2. Booked by phone

3. Booked by email

4. Booked in an office, in person


Q2bx3. Approximate wait time [if 30 seconds, write 0.5 minutes] [Numeric box, range 0-120] PN:


Q2bx4. Time trip began (please enter in 24 hour clock format) [Numeric range, 4 digit validity]

Q2bx5. Total length of time in minicab [Numeric box, range 0-240] PN: write minutes next to

OENUM text box

Q2bx6. Trip purpose (please select one)

1. Entertainment


3. Business trip

4. Tourism


6. Shopping




Q2bx8. Group size (including yourself) [Numeric box, range 1-5]

Q2bx9. Approximate cost of the journey [Numeric box, range 1-100] PN: show £ before OENUM text

box

Q2bx10. Ultimately, who paid? (please select one)

1. Myself

2. Relative/friend

3. Company


Q2bx11. Reason for choosing minicab (please select all that apply) [multiple choice]

1. Door-to-door

2. Quick


4. Convenient

5. Affordable

6. Company arranged

7. Like to know/agree fare in advance



Q2bx12. Would you have preferred to have used a black cab? [dropdown]

1. Yes

2. No

Q2bx13. What are the main reasons why you did not use a black cab? (Please select all that

apply) [multiple choice]

1. Black cabs too expensive


3. Prefer to book a minicab using an app

4. Prefer to use a local minicab company

5. Minicabs are cheaper

6. Prefer the type of vehicle used as minicabs

7. None available

8. Don’t like black cabs

9. Had previous bad experience in a black cab


Q2bx14. Please use the map to select the area where your journey started:

[PN: Insert map]


1. 1-5

2. 6

3. 7

4. 8

5. 9

6. 10

7. 11

8. 12

9. 13

10. 14

[if 1-5 show central London map and Q2b_15]

Q2bx15. Please select the area where your journey started:


1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

Q2bx16. If you know it, please provide the first part of the postcode of where your journey

began:


Q2bx17. Please use the map to select your area of destination:

[PN: Insert map]


1. 1-5

2. 6

3. 7

4. 8

5. 9

6. 10

7. 11

8. 12

9. 13

[if 1-5 show central London map and xvi]

Q2bx18. Please select your area of destination:


1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

Q2bx19. If you know it, please provide the first part of the postcode of where your journey

ended:


[If Q1ax1 OR if Q1bx1 are answered then use ‘six months’ i.e. if Q1a or Q1b=>0 otherwise

use monthly

Q3. Was this a typical [monthly/six monthly] period for using black cabs and minicabs?

Yes ……………………………………………………. 1 [Go to Q5a]

No …………………………………………………….. 2 [Go to Q4]

[If Q1ax1 OR if Q1bx1 are answered then use ‘six months’ i.e. if Q1a or Q1b=>0 otherwise

use monthly]

Q4. How many black cab trips and minicab trips do you typically make a [monthly/in six

months] ? [Numeric box, range 0-100]

_____ black cab trips ______ minicab trips

[only ask Section C if D5=1 or D6=1, otherwise go to Section D]

Section C: Considered black cab trips

Q5a. Thinking now about journeys you have made in the last month in London that were not in a

black cab. Were there any occasions where, if the price was right and one had been available,

you would have preferred to have used a black cab?

1. Yes [Go to Q5b]

2. No [Go to Q10a]

Q5b How many of these occasions were there in the last month?

……… [Numeric box, range 1-20]

Q6. How did you make the last such trip where you would have preferred to have used a black

cab? (please select all that apply) [multiple select]

1. Car (as driver)

2. Car (as passenger)

3. Bus

4. Night bus

5. Train (Overground or National Rail)

6. Underground / DLR / Tram

7. Cycle using own bike

8. Santander Cycle Hire bike

9. Minicab

10. Walk (at least 10 minutes)

11. Motorcycle / scooter


Q7a. When did you make this trip? [dropdown]

1. Monday - Friday

2. Saturday

3. Sunday

Q7b. Time the trip began (please enter your answer in 24 hour clock format) [Numeric box, valid

with 4 digits to allow 24 hour clock only]

Q8a. Where on this map did the trip begin?

[PN: Insert map]


Origin Zone:

1. 1-5

2. 6

3. 7

4. 8

5. 9

6. 10

7. 11

8. 12

9. 13

[if Q8a=1 show central map and ask Q8ai]


Q8ai. Origin Zone:

1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

Q8b. Where on this map did the trip end?

[PN: Insert map]


Destination Zone:

1. 1-5

2. 6

3. 7

4. 8

5. 9

6. 10

7. 11

8. 12

9. 13

[if Q8b=1 show central map and ask Q8b_1]

Q8bx1. Origin Zone:


1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

Q9. What are the main reasons why you did not use a black cab? (Please select all that apply)

[multiple select]



3. Prefer to book a minicab using an app (only show if Q6=9)

4. Prefer to use local minicab company (only show if Q6=9)

5. Minicabs are cheaper (only show if Q6=9)

6. Prefer the type of vehicle used as minicabs (only show if Q6=9)

7. None available




SUPPRESSED BLACK CAB TRIPS

Q10a. Were there any occasions in the last month when you would have liked to have made a trip in

London by black cab, but you did not make the journey at all?

1. Yes [Go to Q10b]

2. No [if Q1a or Q1ax1 = > 0 go to Q11, otherwise go to Q17a]

Q10b. How many such occasions in the last month? ______________ [Numeric box, range 1-10]

Q10c. Why did you not make the trip(s) by black cab? (Please select all that apply)



3. None available




[if Q1a or Q1ai=>0 ask Section D, otherwise go to Section E

Section D: Last black cab trip

Q11. Please think of the most recent trip you made by London black cab, where you travelled

from Zone xxx to Zone xxx [scripting instructions: pull through from Q2ax12 and Q2ax15]

Q12. If for some unexpected reason there had been no black cab service available for the trip (for

example, a black cab driver strike) how do you think you would have travelled? [single

select]

1. Car (as driver) [go to Q15]

2. Car (as passenger) [go to Q15]

3. Bus

4. Night bus





9. Minicab

10. Walk [go to Q15]


12. Other (please specify) [go to Q15]

13. Not made the trip go to Section E

Q13. How much do you think this would have cost? (Please give best guess) [Numeric value, range

1-100] PN: show £ before OENUM text box

Q14. How much waiting time for the journey to start do you think would have been involved? (if 30

seconds, write 0.5) _______________ minutes [Numeric value, range 0-60]

Q15. And what do you think the journey time would have been door-to-door (excluding wait time),

in minutes? _______________ minutes [Numeric value, range 0-360]

I would like you to imagine that you were about to make your last black cab trip again. This

is, for the same purpose with the same travel group and between the same two places. Please

consider the following four options (A, B, C, D). Each represents a different type of black cab,

or alternative, service that might have been available for your journey. Each is defined in

terms of: door-to-door journey time, cost including tip (if applicable) and wait time.

Option A: Black Cab

Journey Time T mins [Q2ax5.]

Total Cost £ F [Q2ax9.]

Wait Time W+20% mins [Q2ax3 x1.2]

Option B: Black Cab

Journey Time T mins [Q2ax5]

Total Cost £ F+20 [Q2ax9 x 1.2]

Wait Time W mins [Q2ax3]

Option C: Black Cab


Total Cost £ F [Q2ax9]


Option D: [Q12]

Journey Time T alt mins [Q15]

Total Cost £ F alt [Q13]

Wait Time W alt mins [Q14]

Q16b.

Rank Option

Best :

2nd :

3rd :

4th :

Please rank them in order of preference from best to worst.

Q16a.

Please do the same thing again with different wait times and costs.

Option A: Black Cab


Total Cost £ F [Q2ax9]

Wait Time W+40% mins [Q2ax3 x 1.4]

Option B: Black Cab


Total Cost £ F+10% [Q2ax9 x 1.1]

Wait Time W+10% mins [Q2ax3 x1.1]

Option C: Black Cab


Total Cost £ F+40% [Q2ax9 x1.4]


Option D: [Q12]

Journey Time T alt mins [Q15]

Total Cost £ F alt [Q13]

Wait Time W alt mins [Q14]

Rank Option

Best :

2nd :

3rd :

4th :

Section E: Paying Electronically

Q17a. Is it possible to pay by credit/debit card in black cabs in London?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

Q17b. Is it possible to pay by debit/credit card for a minicab in London?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

Q18a. At present you can pay by debit/credit card in only some black cabs but, from 3rd October,

you will be able to pay by debit/card in all black cabs in London.

Do you think that being able to pay by debit/credit card will make you more, or less likely to

use black cabs in London?

1. Much more likely

2. A little more likely

3. No change

4. A little less likely

5. Much less likely

Q18b. Do you think that being able to pay by contactless card would make you more, or less likely

to use black cabs in London?

1. Much more likely


3. No change


5. Much less likely

Q19. Which of these features should the card payment device have (Please tick all that apply,

noting also that each feature may add a few pennies onto every fare). [multi select]

1. A direct link between the taxi meter and the card payment device (so that the fare is

automatically shown on the card payment device)

2. Opportunity to leave a tip


Q20 “When all black cabs allow card payment - and bearing in mind there won’t be a need to

have the cash before getting into a black cab - for what proportion of future black cab

journeys do you think you will pay by card? [single choice]

1. 1 – All/Almost all black cab journeys

2. 2 – Most, but not all, black cab journeys

3. 3 – Around half of all black cab journeys

4. 4 – A few black cab journeys, but less than half

5. 5 – None/almost none.”

Section F: Demographics 2

Finally, just a few questions to help us analyse the results further.

D6. Are you a member of the Taxicard scheme?

1. Yes

2. No

D7. Do you have a full driving licence?

1. Yes

2. No [Go to D11]

D8. On average, how frequently do you drive?

1. Every day, or at least five days a week

2. Three to four days a week

3. One to two days a week

4. A few times fortnightly

5. A few times monthly

6. Less than monthly

7. Never

D9. Within the last 12 months has your car usage changed?

1. Yes – increased

2. Yes – decreased

3. No – it has not changed

[If D9=1 or 2]

D10. What is the main reason for your change in car usage? [open ended]

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

D11. How many cars does your household have available for private use? [dropdown]

1. None

2. One

3. Two

4. Three

5. More than three

Thank and close

[end time]

Zone Maps

Central Zones

Greater London Zones

Appendix B – Taxi Driver Survey

1 | P a g e

London Taxi Study

Driver Survey

[script for online survey]

Thank you for agreeing to take part in this survey. This survey is about taxi fares in London and

whether any changes would affect your choice of working patterns. TfL has commissioned SYSTRA to

carry out a review of taxi fares and tariffs and your views and thoughts on these are important to

TfL.

Please be assured that this survey is completely confidential and TfL will not be able to link any

answers to individual drivers.

The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. All those who participate in this survey

will have the opportunity to be entered into a prize draw; first prize is a £200 High Street Shopping

voucher, with two runners up receiving a £50 voucher. Please submit your response by 23rd

September, after which the survey will be closed.

Please note, we have randomly selected your email address from the list of licensed drivers provided

to us by TfL specifically for the purpose of carrying out this survey. Only a modest sample of drivers

have been contacted, so you have a good chance of winning the prize draw.

2 | P a g e

Section A: Weekly Shift Patterns

We would like to explore how different taxi fare structures would affect you. There are 3 hypothetical

fare structures for you to consider and all involve increases in taxi fares at certain times of the day.

Q1. To begin, please select the hours you work in a typical week by ticking the boxes in the table.

So the total number of hours worked in a typical week is _____ [sum Q1]

T1 And the total number of hours worked during Tariff 1 period (0500-2000 Monday – Friday) is

_____ [sum Q1 if Tariff 1]

T2 And the total number of hours worked during Tariff 2 period (2000-2200 Monday – Friday and

0500-2200 at weekends) is _____ [sum Q1 if Tariff 2]

T3 And the total number of hours worked during Tariff 3 period (2200-0500 daily) is _____ [sum

Q1 if Tariff 3]

Hour: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

0000-0100

0100-0200

0200-0300

0300-0400

0400-0500

0500-0600

0600-0700

0700-0800

0800-0900

0900-1000

1000-1100

1100-1200

1200-1300

1300-1400

1400-1500

1500-1600

1600-1700

1700-1800

1800-1900

1900-2000

2000-2100

2100-2200

2200-2300

2300-2400

Tariff 1

Tariff 2

Tariff 3

3 | P a g e

Q2. Why do you work the hours that you do? [PLEASE GIVE THE MAIN REASON ONLY]

Habit/Routine

When it is most profitable

To fit around my family/private life

It’s when I can access a cab

Other (Please specify ________________________)

In order for you to consider the impact of a change in tariff structure on your likely weekly takings, we

must compare these amounts with your current weekly fare intake. Please be aware this information

is for illustrative purposes, and is not linked in any way to personal information.

Q3a. Approximately, what was your total fare takings for such a week’s work? (before tax and other

costs) £_______

We would like you to think about whether this revenue is earned during Tariff 1, 2 or 3. In the boxes

below, please type in how this revenue is (roughly) divided between the three tariffs. The total must

be the same as the weekly fare intake stated above. (If you do not work any hours in a particular

tarriff period please enter '0' in the corresponding box)

Time Period Hours £

Tariff 1 period (0500-2000 Monday – Friday) [populated T1] __________ [W]

Tariff 2 period (2000-2200 Monday – Friday and 0500-2200 at weekends) [populated T2]

__________ [X]

Tariff 3 period(2200-0500 daily) [populated T3] __________ [Y]

Total [populated Q1] MUST TOTAL [Q3a] [Z]

4 | P a g e

We would now like to explore how different taxi fare structures would affect you. There are 3

hypothetical fare structures for you to consider and all involve increases in taxi fares at certain times

of the day.

Scenario 1

Q6. The first scenario to consider is a 25% fare increase (fixed and per mile) on Tariff 2 and Tariff 3.

Therefore, imagining there was no change in demand:

If you did not change your working hours at all, from the hours you work in a typical week, your

weekly taking would be £ [T2 x 1.25) + (T3 x 1.25) + T1]

And if you moved all your hours of operation into Tariff periods 2 and 3, your typical weekly

takings would be £ [Total x 1.25]

Alternatively, if you only worked during Tariff 2 and 3 hours you would typically only have to

work for [Q1-total hours x 0.8] hours to take home the same money as now.

Q6a. Do you think that you would change your schedule if this new tariff structure was in place?

Yes [go to Q6b] No [go to Q7]

Q6b. How would you change your weekly working hours?

Work more hours than now Work less hours than now Work the same hours

Tariff period 1 1 2 3

(0500-2000 Monday – Friday)


(2000-2200 Monday – Friday and 0500-2200 at weekends)


(2200-0500 daily)

[show if Tariff 1=1] How many more Tariff 1 hours would you work per week? _____



[show if Tariff 1=2] How many fewer tariff 1 hours would you work per week? _____

[show if Tariff 2=2] How many fewer Tariff 2 hours would you work per week? _____


Q6c Can you explain how you would change your hours of operation in this scenario, and why?

_____________________________________________________________________________

5 | P a g e

_____________________________________________________________________________

6 | P a g e

Scenario 2

Q7. The second scenario to consider is a 40% fare increase (fixed and per mile) on Tariff 2 .



weekly taking would be £ [(T2 x 1.4) + T3 + T1]

And if you moved all your hours of operation into Tariff 2, your typical weekly takings would be

£ [Total x 1.4]

Alternatively, if you only worked during Tariff 2 you would typically only have to work for [Q1-

total hours x 0.7] hours to take home the same money as now.










(2200-0500 daily)








_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

7 | P a g e

Scenario 3

Q8. The final scenario to consider is a 25% fare increase (fixed and per mile) on Tariff 1.



weekly taking would be £ [(T1x1.25) + T2 +T3]

And if you moved all your hours of operation into Tariff 1, your typical weekly takings would be

£ [Total x 1.1.25]

Alternatively, if you only worked during Tariff 2 and 3 hours you would typically only have to

work for [Q1- total hours x 0.8] hours to take home the same money as now.










(2200-0500 daily)








_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

8 | P a g e

Q9. Do you have any other comments regarding taxi fares and tariffs that you would like to add?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Section B: Card Payment

Q10. Do you have the facilities to accept card payments in your cab? (please select one answer only)

Yes

No, but plan to have in time for the October deadline

No, and have no plans to do so

[IF Q10=Yes]

Q10b. What card payment system do you use? (please select one answer only)

Cab:app Ltd

Cabvision Network Ltd

CMT UK Ltd

Farepay Ltd

Ingenico

iZettle

Payleven

PayPal

Sherbet

Taxiworld Ltd

The Payment House

Verifone

Other (please specify)

[IF Q10=Yes]

Q11. Does your card payment system link directly to your taximeter?

Yes

No

Don’t know

Q12. Are you in favour, or not, of the card payment system linking directly to the taximeter?

Yes

No

9 | P a g e

Don’t know

Q13. Why is this?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Section C: Demographics

Finally, some questions to help us analyse the results of this survey. All your answers will be kept

strictly confidential and anonymous.

Q14. Do you own your cab? (please select one answer only)

Yes, I own my own cab [go to Q15]

No, I rent my cab [go to Q17]

No, other [go to Q17]

Q15. Do you get revenue from advertising on your taxi? (please select one answer only)

Yes

No

[IF YES]

Q16. Do you consider this revenue to be: (please select one answer only)

a small proportion compared with fare revenue

a reasonable proportion compared with fare revenue

a high proportion compared with fare revenue

Q17. Apart from working as a taxi driver, are you in any other paid employment?

Yes [go to Q18] No [go to Q19]

Q18. Approximately what proportion of your annual income comes from other paid employment?

_______%

Don’t know Prefer not to say

Q19. Approximately how many miles do you drive, as a taxi driver, in a year?

______________ per year

10 | P a g e

Don’t know

Q20. Approximately how many weeks do you work each year? ______________

Q21. What area of London do you usually work? (please select all that apply)

Central London

Airports

Suburbs

All over

Other

Q22. How long have you been a licensed taxi driver? (please select one answer only)

Less than a year

1-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

Over 20 years

Q23. Are you a green or yellow badge holder?

Green

Yellow

Q24. By what methods do you get your jobs? (please select all that apply)

Hailing/cruising on-street

Rank

Marshalled Rank

Radio circuit

App

Other

11 | P a g e

Q25. Gender

Male

Female

End

Thank you for your time; your views are very much appreciated and will help inform our review of

taxi fares and tariffs in London.

Q26. Would you like to be entered into a prize draw to win a £200 High Street Shopping voucher or

£50 runner-up prize?

Yes

No

Q27. Please enter you email address below. If you wish to enter the prize draw we will need your

email details in order to re-contact you if you win. Your details will not be used for any other

purpose and not linked to your survey results.

We might wish to re-contact you, by email, to get additional feedback on one or more of your

answers.

Q28. In principle, would you be happy to be contacted, just for the purposes of this survey?

Yes

No

Q29. Please provide your telephone number, and let us know the best time of day to call you.

Appendix C – Heathrow Passenger Surveys

T1 Q1a Q1b Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Time of interview

Group Size (inc resp.)

No. bags/cases

Where do you normally live? (i.e. permanent residence) 1. London 2. UK Non-London 3. Non-UK

Where are you travelling to? 1. Central London 2. Other London 3. Non-London

How much do you think the journey will cost? (£) (if ‘no idea’ – please write in, otherwise best guess)

How long do you think the journey will take? (minutes)

What is the purpose of your taxi journey today? 1. Leisure/tourism 2. Business 3. Work 4. Other

(a) How do you intend to pay? 1. Cash 2. Card

(b) How would you prefer to pay? 1. Cash 2. Card

Email address. PRINTED Explain they can complete a 15-minute online survey, with a £250 prize draw.

Date:

Terminal:

Sheet No:

SYSTRA, an independent market research agency, is seeking feedback on the Heathrow taxi services on behalf of Transport for London, who are responsible for taxis at

Heathrow. Would you be willing to answer a few questions about your taxi journey today?

London Black cab Study

Heathrow Traveller Survey

[script for online survey]

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to take part in this survey on your most recent black cab journey from

Heathrow airport. Please only submit one survey response per journey, even if there were multiple

members in your group.

The survey is being run on behalf of Transport for London, who are responsible for the black cab

services at Heathrow.

The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. All those who participate in this survey

will have the opportunity to be entered into a prize draw; first prize is a £100 High Street Shopping

voucher, with four runners up receiving a £50 voucher. Please submit your response by [date], after

which the survey will be closed.

Section B: Your recent black cab journey from Heathrow

Firstly, we have a few questions about your recent black cab journey from the airport.

Q1. Which terminal did you take the black cab from?

1. Terminal 2

2. Terminal 3

3. Terminal 4

4. Terminal 5

Q2. On which day of the week did you make this journey on?

1. Monday

2. Tuesday

3. Wednesday

4. Thursday

5. Friday

6. Saturday

7. Sunday

Q3. Approximately how many minutes where you waiting in the queue for your black cab?

………... minutes (if 30 seconds, please write 0.5 minutes)

Q4. Approximately what time did your journey in the black cab begin?

…………. (please enter in 24 hour clock format)

Q5. Approximately how long did your black cab journey take?

…………. minutes

Q6. What was the main purpose of this black cab journey?

1. Entertainment


3. Business trip

4. Tourism

5. Shopping




Q6a Where were you travelling to? (unless Q6=2)

1. Home

2. Hotel / B&B / Booked accommodation

3. Friends / family

4. Other

Q7. How many people were you in the black cab with (including yourself)?

……….. people

Q7a How many bags did you have with you?

____ hand luggage

____ large luggage

None

Q8a. How much did the black cab journey cost (excluding a tip)?

£………

Q8b. Did you give a tip?

1. Yes

2. No

[If yes] £…….

Q8c Was this cheaper or more expensive than you expected?

3. Much more expensive

4. A little more expensive

5. About what I expected

6. A little cheaper

7. Much cheaper

Q9a. Ultimately, who paid for the black cab journey?

1. Myself

2. Relative/friend

3. Company


Q9b. How was the journey paid for?

1. Cash

2. Card


Q9c Were both cash and card payment available to you?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

Q9d [If Q9c=2] If both cash and card payment were available, how would you have preferred to pay?

1. Cash

2. Card

Q10. Why did you choose to take a black cab, as opposed to another form of transport? (Please

select as many options as apply.)

1. Door-to-door

2. Quick


4. Convenient

5. Affordable

6. Company arranged

7. My preferred choice of transport was unavailable (please specify preferred choice)


Q10a Have you taken a black cab from the airport before?

1. No, this was the first time

2. Yes, in the last month

3. Yes, in the last 6 months

4. Yes, in the last 12 months

5. Yes, more than 12 months ago

Q11. Using the map, please select the area where your journey ended.

1. 1-5

2. 6

3. 7

4. 8

5. 9

6. 10

7. 11

8. 12

9. 13

10. 14

[If Q11=1]

Q12. Using the map, please select the area in central London where your journey ended.

1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

Q13. If you know it, please enter the first part of the postcode of where your journey ended.

………….

[If Q6=4]

Q14. Will you use a black cab to return to Heathrow?

1. Yes

2. No

Q15a. How many journeys have you made to and from Heathrow airport in the past 12 months in

total?


Q15b. What other methods of transport, other that black cab, have you used to travel to and from

Heathrow in the past 12 months (please select all that apply)?

1. None

2. Car (as driver)

3. Car (as passenger)

4. Bus

5. Night bus




9. Cycle Hire bike

10. Minicab

11. Walk



Section C: Last black cab trip

Q16. If, for some unexpected reason, there had been no black cab service available for the trip (for

example, a black cab driver strike) how do you think you would have travelled? [single select]

1. Car (as driver) [go to Q19]

2. Car (as passenger) [go to Q19]

3. Bus

4. Night bus





9. Minicab

10. Walk [go to Q19]



13. Not made the trip go to Section D

Q17. How much do you think this would have cost? (Please give best guess)

£…….

Q18. How much waiting time for the journey to start do you think would have been involved? (if

30 seconds, write 0.5)

……………… minutes [Numeric value, range 0-60]

Q19. And what do you think the journey time would have been door-to-door (excluding wait

time), in minutes?

………………. minutes [Numeric value, range 0-360]

I would like you to imagine that you were about to make the same journey from Heathrow

again. This is, for the same purpose with the same travel group and between the same two

places. Please consider the following four options (A, B, C, D). Each represents a different

type of black cab, or alternative, service that might have been available for your journey.

Each is defined in terms of: door-to-door journey time, cost including tip (if applicable) and

wait time.

Please rank them in order of preference from best to worst.

Option A: Black cab

Journey Time T mins [Q2ax5] Total Cost £ F [Q2ax9] Wait Time W+40% mins [Q2ax3 x 1.4]

Option B: Black cab

Journey Time T mins [Q2ax5] Total Cost £ F+10% [Q2ax9 x 1.1] Wait Time W+10% mins [Q2ax3 x1.1]

Option C: Black cab

Journey Time T mins [Q2ax5] Total Cost £ F+40% [Q2ax9 x1.4] Wait Time W mins [Q2ax3]

Option D: [Q16]

Journey Time T alt mins [Q15] Total Cost £ F alt [Q13] Wait Time W alt mins [Q14]

Q20.

Rank Option

Best :

2nd :

3rd :

4th :

[IF OPTION D RANKED 4TH, SKIP TO SECTION D]

Please do the same thing again with different wait times and costs.

Option A: Black cab

Journey Time T mins [Q2ax5.] Total Cost £ F [Q2ax9.] Wait Time W+20% mins [Q2ax3 x1.2]

Option B: Black cab

Journey Time T mins [Q2ax5] Total Cost £ F+20 [Q2ax9 x 1.2] Wait Time W mins [Q2ax3]

Option C: Black cab

Journey Time T mins [Q2ax5] Total Cost £ F [Q2ax9] Wait Time W mins [Q2ax3]

Option D: [Q12]

Journey Time T alt mins [Q15] Total Cost £ F alt [Q13] Wait Time W alt mins [Q14]

Q21.

Rank Option

Best :

2nd :

3rd :

4th :

Section D: Fixed fares

Q22. Thinking again about your most recent black cab journey from Heathrow airport, before you

got in the black cab did you know how much it would cost?

1. I was confident I knew how much the fare would be

2. I had a rough idea of how much the fare would be

3. I had no idea how much the fare would be

Q23. Would you prefer the journey you took from the airport to your destination to have a fixed fare

i.e. one set price?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

Q24. You said your fare from Heathrow cost £[Q8]. Would you prefer this journey to be fixed at this

amount, or that it could vary depending on traffic conditions?

1. Fixed fare

2. Variable fare (as now)

3. Don’t know

Q24a. Would you prefer there to be a fixed fare or a variable fare with an overall cap of, for

example, £95?

4. Fixed fare

5. Variable fare with a cap

6. Don’t know

Section E: Paying Electronically

Q25. Is it possible to pay by credit/debit card in black cabs in London?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

Q26. At present you can pay by debit/credit card in only some black cabs but, from 31st October,

you will be able to pay by debit/card in all black cabs in London.

Do you think that being able to pay by debit/credit card will make you more, or less likely to

use black cabs to/from Heathrow?

1. Much more likely


3. No change


5. Much less likely

Q27. Do you think that being able to pay by contactless card would make you more, or less likely

to use black cabs to/from Heathrow?

1. Much more likely


3. No change


5. Much less likely

Q28. Which of these features should the card payment device have (Please tick all that apply,

noting also that each feature may add a few pennies onto every fare). [multi select]

1. A direct link between the taxi meter and the card payment device (so that the fare is

automatically shown on the card payment device)

2. Opportunity to leave a tip


Q29. When all black cabs allow card payment - and bearing in mind there won’t be a need to have

the cash before getting into a black cab - for what proportion of future black cab journeys

to/from Heathrow do you think you will pay by card? [single choice]

1. All/almost all black cab journeys to/from Heathrow

2. Most, but not all, black cab journeys to/from Heathrow

3. Around half of all black cab journeys to/from Heathrow

4. A few black cab journeys, but less than half to/from Heathrow

5. None/almost none

Section F: Demographics

Finally, some questions about you, to help us analyse the results of this survey. All your answers will

be kept strictly confidential and anonymous.

D1. Which of these age groups do you fall into?

1. 16-24

2. 25-44

3. 45-59

4. 60-64

5. 65+

D2. Which of the following best describes your annual household income?

1. Under £20,000

2. £20,000 to £39,999

3. £40,000 to £59,999

4. £60,000 to £79,999

5. £80,000 to £99,999

6. £100,000 +

D3. Please indicate to which occupational group you belong to, or which group fits you best.

If you are retired and have an occupational pension please answer for your most recent occupation.

If you are not in paid employment but have been out of work for less than 6 months, please answer

for your most recent occupation. (Please select one answer)

1) Semi or unskilled manual work

(e.g. Manual workers, all apprentices to be skilled trades, Caretaker, Park keeper, non-HGV driver, shop assistant)

2) Skilled manual worker

(e.g. Skilled Bricklayer, Carpenter, Plumber, Painter, Bus/ Ambulance Driver, HGV driver, AA patrolman, pub/bar worker, etc.)

3) Supervisory or clerical/ junior managerial/ professional/ administrative

(e.g. Office worker, Student Doctor, Foreman with 25+ employees, salesperson, etc.)

4) Intermediate managerial/ professional/ administrative

(e.g. Newly qualified (under 3 years) doctor, Solicitor, Board director small organisation, middle manager in large organisation, principle officer in civil service/local government)

5) Higher managerial/ professional/ administrative

(e.g. Established doctor, Solicitor, Board Director in a large organisation (200+ employees, top level civil servant/public service employee))

6) Student

7) Casual worker – not in permanent employment

8) Housewife/ Homemaker

9) Retired and living on state pension

10) Unemployed or not working due to long-term sickness

D4. Gender

1. Male

2. Female

D5. Where is your (main) home?

1. In London

2. In UK outside London

3. Outside UK

D6. Are you a member of the Black cabcard scheme?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t Know

D7.

Thank you very much for completing the survey!

D12. Would you like to be entered into a prize draw to win a £100 High Street Shopping voucher or

£50 runner-up prize?

1. Yes

2. No

[If D12=1]

D13. Please enter you email address below. Your details will not be used for any other purpose and

not linked to your survey results.

__________________________________________

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE BLACK CAB STUDY SURVEY PRIZE DRAW

1. Surveys must be completed by 23.59hrs XXXXXX.

2. All entrants must be over the age of 16.

3. No purchase is necessary.

4. The prize winners will be drawn in the week commencing XXXXX. The winners will be selected at

random from all eligible entries received. There are only five prizes available.

5. The winners will be notified within a reasonable time after the draw date by email. The prize is

awarded conditionally upon acceptance and if a winner is unable to be contacted after a reasonable

period (or if any prize is unclaimed or declined within a reasonable period) the prize shall be deemed

as unclaimed or unaccepted and a supplementary winner may be drawn.

6. The name of the prize winners will be made available after the closing date to those sending an

email to [email protected] marked ‘Black cab Study Survey Prize Draw'.

7. No other equivalent prize will be given. The prize cannot be exchanged for cash.

8. This prize draw is conducted in compliance with the Market Research Society Rules and

Regulations for administering Prize Draws (updated May 2007).

9. English law applies.

Appendix D – Heathrow Driver Survey

1 | P a g e

London Taxi Study

Heathrow Driver Survey

Screener

We’re undertaking a survey on behalf of TfL as part of a review of taxi fares and tariffs.

S1. Do you mainly work from Heathrow airport?

1. Yes [go to S2]

2. No [record, thank and close]

S2. Do you only work from Heathrow airport? [record answer]

1. Yes

2. No

S3. Would you be interested in taking part in a 20-minute survey on your weekly shift patterns and

potential changes to the tariff structure; you’ll be reimbursed £20 for your time? Please be assured

that this survey is completely confidential and TfL will not be able to link any answers to individual

drivers.

1. Yes [continue]

2. No [thank and close]

2 | P a g e

Section A: Weekly Shift Patterns

Q1. To begin, please select the hours you work in a typical week by ticking the boxes in the table.

So the total number of hours worked in a typical week is _____ [sum Q1]

T1 And the total number of hours worked during Tariff period 1 is _____ [sum Q1 if Tariff 1]



Hour: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

0000-0100

0100-0200

0200-0300

0300-0400

0400-0500

0500-0600

0600-0700

0700-0800

0800-0900

0900-1000

1000-1100

1100-1200

1200-1300

1300-1400

1400-1500

1500-1600

1600-1700

1700-1800

1800-1900

1900-2000

2000-2100

2100-2200

2200-2300

2300-2400

Tariff 1

Tariff 2

Tariff 3

3 | P a g e

Q2. Why do you work the hours that you do? [PLEASE GIVE THE MAIN REASON ONLY]

Habit/Routine

When it is most profitable

To fit around my family/private life

It’s when I can access a cab

Other (Pls specify ________________________)

In order for you to consider the impact of a change in tariff structure on your likely weekly takings, we

must compare these amounts with your current weekly fare intake. Please be aware this information

is for illustrative purposes, and is not linked in any way to personal information.

Q3a. Approximately, what was your total fare takings for such a week’s work? (before tax and other

costs) £_______

We would like you to think about whether this revenue is earned during Tariff 1, 2 or 3. In the boxes

below, please type in how this revenue is (roughly) divided between the three tariffs. The total must

be the same as the weekly fare intake stated above.

Time Period Hours £

Tariff 1

Tariff 2

Tariff 3 Total

We would now like to explore how different taxi fare structures would affect you. There are 3

hypothetical fare structures for you to consider and all involve increases in taxi fares at certain times

of the day.

4 | P a g e

Scenario 1

Q6. The first scenario to consider is a 25% fare increase (fixed and per mile) on Tariffs 2 and 3. Please

imagine that there was sufficient demand to ensure that any hours worked during these times

gave a 25% better financial return than now.

Therefore, in this scenario:


weekly taking would be £…. [X x 1.25) + (Y x 1.25) + W]

And if you moved all your hours of operation into Tariff periods 2 and 3, your weekly takings

would be £…. [Z x 1.25]

Alternatively, if you only worked during Tariff 2 and 3 hours you would only have to work for

[Q1 x 0.8] ……. hours to take home the same money as now.

Q6a. You may choose to change your hours of operation only slightly, or not at all. Demand has not

changed. Thinking about the hours you work in a typical week, do you think you would change

your schedule at all, if this new tariff structure was in place?


Q6b. Can you explain how you would change your hours of operation in this scenario, and why?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 2

Q7. The second scenario to consider is a 40% fare increase (fixed and per mile) on Tariff 2. Please





weekly taking would be £…. [(X x 1.4) + Y + W]

And if you moved all your hours of operation into Tariff period 2, your weekly takings would be

£….. [Z x 1.4]

Alternatively, if you only worked during Tariff 2 you would only have to work for [Q1 x 0.7]

…..hours to take home the same money as now.

5 | P a g e


changed. Looking at the hours you worked last week, do you think you would have changed

your schedule at all, if this new tariff structure had been in place?



_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

6 | P a g e

Scenario 3

Q8. The final scenario to consider is a 25% fare increase (fixed and per mile) on Tariff 1. Please





weekly taking would be £…. [(Wx1.25) + X +Y]

And if you moved all your hours of operation into Tariff 1 period, your weekly takings would be

£…. [Z x 1.1.25]

Alternatively, if you only worked during Tariff 2 and 3 hours you would only have to work for

[Q1 x 0.8] …..hours to take home the same money as now.


changed. Looking at the hours you worked last week, do you think you would have changed

your schedule at all, if this new tariff structure had been in place?



_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Q8c. Do you have any other comments regarding taxi fares and tariffs that you would like to add?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

7 | P a g e

Flat, or Capped, Fares

Q9a. Would you support, oppose, or be indifferent to a TfL proposal to introduce a flat fare from

central London to Heathrow, set at the average current fare?

Support

Oppose

Indifferent

Q9b. Would you support, oppose, or be indifferent to a TfL proposal to introduce a flat fare from

Heathrow to central London, set at the average current fare?

Support

Oppose

Indifferent

Q9c. Would you consider acceptable, or unacceptable, a TfL proposal to introduce a Capped fare

between Heathrow and central London, meaning that a Maximum fare of, say, £95, would apply

even for the most congested traffic conditions?

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Indifferent

Q9d. Do you have any alternative suggestions for how TfL could reduce the risk of a passenger

incurring a very high taxi fare (in excess of £100) for travel from Heathrow?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Q9e. Do you think that the tariff for journeys of more than 6 miles should increase, decrease or stay the same?

Increase Decrease Stay the same

Q9f. do you think that the minimum fare in London of £2.60 should increase, decrease or stay the same?

Increase

8 | P a g e

Decrease Stay the same

9 | P a g e

Section B: Card Payment Systems

Q10. Do you have the facilities to accept card payments in your cab?

Yes

No

[IF Q10=Yes]

Q10b. What card payment system do you use?

Cab:app Ltd

Cabvision Network Ltd

CMT UK Ltd

Farepay Ltd

Ingenico

iZettle

Payleven

PayPal

Sherbet

Taxiworld Ltd

The Payment House

Verifone

Other (please specify)

[IF Q10=Yes]

Q11. Does your card payment system link directly to your taximeter?

Yes

No

Don’t know

Q12. Are you in favour, or not, of the card payment system linking directly to the taximeter?

Yes

No

Don’t know

Q13. Why is this?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Section C: Demographics

10 | P a g e

Finally, some questions to help us analyse the results of this survey. All your answers will be kept

strictly confidential and anonymous.

Q14. Do you get revenue from advertising on your taxi?

Yes

No

[IF YES]

Q15. Do you consider this revenue to be:

a small proportion compared with fare revenue

a reasonable proportion compared with fare revenue

a high proportion compared with fare revenue

Q16. Apart from working as a taxi driver, are you in any other paid employment?

Yes [go to Q17] No [go to Q18]

Q17. Approximately what proportion of your annual income comes from taxi driving? _______%

Don’t know Prefer not to say

Q18. How many miles do you drive in a typical week, or year? ______________ per week/year

Q19. Approximately how many weeks do you work each year? ______________

Alternatively, how many days a year do you think you work? (optional) ______________

Q20. How long have you been a licensed taxi driver?

Less than a year

1-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

Over 20 years

11 | P a g e

Q21. Are you a green or yellow badge holder?

Green

Yellow

Q22. By what methods do you get your jobs?

Hailed/cruising on-street

Rank

Marshalled Rank

Radio circuit / app

App

Other

Q23. Do you own your cab?

Yes, an owner-driver

No, a journeyman

No, other

Q24. Gender

Male

Female

End

Thank you for your time; your views are very much appreciated and will help inform our review of

taxi fares and tariffs in London. Distribute incentive.

Appendix E – Card Payment Consultation Material

Consultation with Manufacturers & Suppliers: Card Payment Devices

Thank you for offering to participate in this survey.

SYSTRA Ltd is an independent transport consultancy that is undertaking a review on linking taxi card

payment devices to taximeters on behalf of TfL.

Please would you use this form to provide details of the card payment devices that you supply, and

any issues or constraints to your ability to serve the market that might apply if TfL were to require all

card payment devices to be linked to the taximeter.

When completed, please email your response to [email protected]. If you are content to be

re-contacted, by email or telephone, to elaborate on a particular answer – then please also let us have

your contact telephone number.

Q1a. What services do you provide for the taxi industry?

Card payment devices Taximeters Other (please specify)

Q1b. Do you manufacture devices, or supply them directly to the industry?

The questions below are regarding card payment devices. If you also supply/manufacture taximeters

and have not received questions on these please contact Evelyn Robertson at

[email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


Q2a. Please list all of the card payment device models you supply/manufacture which are currently

approved for use in taxis (black cabs) in London.

Q2b. For each device that is approved by TfL and currently available for purchase please can you

outline the following: (Please complete this information for all devices currently available for

purchase, even if there are more than three of them.)

Device 1 Initial Cost to the driver: Cost of fitting the device in the passenger compartment: Cost per transaction: Minimum contract length: Any other costs (e.g. maintenance costs): Device 2 Initial Cost to the driver: Cost of fitting the device in the passenger compartment: Cost per transaction:

Minimum contract length: Any other costs (e.g. maintenance costs): Device 3 Initial Cost to the driver: Cost of fitting the device in the passenger compartment: Cost per transaction: Minimum contract length: Any other costs (e.g. maintenance costs):

Q3. From 31 October 2016, when all London taxis must have a card payment device, will there be

any practical limitations with regard to the functionality of your devices in relation to each

of the following (please elaborate in the box):

Maximum transactions value

Card types not accepted

Mixing card and cash payments

Handling of tips

Handling of refunds

Printing of receipts

Q4a. Are any of the card payment devices you provide, and which are approved by TfL for use in

London taxis, linked directly to the taximeter?

Yes which one(s): ____________________________

No which one(s): ____________________________

Q4b. Are there any restrictions with the card payment devices you provide that can link with

taximeters? E.g. Are there only certain types of taximeter that they link with?

Q4c. How many devices do you provide to the taxi industry that link directly to the taximeter i.e.

how many of these devices are currently in use by London black cabs?

Q4d. How many devices do you provide to the taxi industry that do not link directly to the

taximeter i.e. how many of these devices are currently in use by London black cabs?

ONLY ANSWER Q5 AND Q6 IF SOME OF YOUR CARD PAYMENT DEVICES DO NOT CURRENTLY LINK

DIRECTLY TO THE METER

Q5. If TfL decides that only card payment devices that link directly to the taximeter can be used in

taxis in future, please confirm if any of the card payment devices your company provides could

not be linked to the taximeter?

For these devices please highlight below how feasible, or unfeasible, it would be to modify

these to link them to the taximeter. What would be the costs? What would be the timescale?

Would there be any other impact (to the trade, or passengers)?

Feasibility of linking device to the taximeter:

Costs involved in linking device to taximeter:

Timescale to link all devices in operation to the taximeter:

Potential issues/problems:

Other comments:

Q6. Do you have any other observations or concerns that you would like to feedback to TfL?

Q9. If you would be happy to receive a call from us to discuss in more detail any of your answers,

please would you provide details here.

Name: _________________________________________

Tel No: _________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________

Consultation with Manufacturers & Suppliers: Taximeters

Thank you for offering to participate in this survey.

SYSTRA Ltd is an independent transport consultancy that is undertaking a review of linking taxi card

payment devices to taximeters on behalf of TfL.

Please would you use this form to provide details of the taximeters that you supply for use in taxis in

London, and any issues or constraints to your ability to serve the market that might apply if TfL were

to require all card payment devices to be linked to the taximeter.

When completed, please email your response to [email protected]. If you are content to be

re-contacted, by email or telephone, to elaborate on a particular answer – then please also let us have

your contact telephone number.

Q1a. What services do you provide for the taxi industry?

Card payment devices Taximeters Other (please specify)

Q1b. Do you manufacture devices, or supply them directly to the industry?

The questions below are regarding taximeters. If you also supply/manufacture card payment devices

and have not received questions on these please contact Evelyn Robertson at

[email protected].



Q2a. Please list all of the taximeter models you supply which are currently used in taxis (black cabs)

in London.

Q2b. Currently, not all taximeters and card payment devices are linked. Please confirm which of

the taximeters you supply can and cannot be linked directly to a card payment device

Linkage possible which one(s): ____________________________

Linkage not possible which one(s): ____________________________

Q2c. Are there any restrictions with the taximeters that can link with card payments devices? E.g.

are there only certain types of card payment devices that they link with? Please provide this

information for each taximeter model.

Q2d. How many taximeters do you provide to the industry that can link directly to card payment

devices i.e. how many of your taximeters are installed in London black cabs, that can or are linked to

card payment devices?

Q2e. How many taximeters do you provide to the industry that cannot link directly to card

payment devices i.e. how many of your taximeters are installed in London black cabs, that can or are

linked to card payment devices?

[ONLY ANSWER Q3 IF SOME OF YOUR DEVICES DO NOT LINK DIRECTLY TO CARD PAYMENT DEVICES]

Q3. If TfL decides that only card payment devices that link directly to the taximeter can be used in

taxis in future, please confirm if any of the taximeters your company provides could not be

linked to card payment devices?

For each taximeter you supply please advise if it would be feasible to modify this to link it to

a card payment device, the costs involved, the timescale, and if there would there be any

other impacts to drivers, or passengers?

Feasibility:

Costs involved:

Timescale:

Other Consequences:

Card payment devices potentially compatible:

Q4. For each taximeter model you supply, please state the cost, to the driver, in terms of: initial

cost (device installation, fares configuration, etc.); annual rental cost; maintenance; and

annual update with the new tariff rates. (Please complete for all taximeter models, even if

there are more than three.)

Taximeter 1

Initial cost:

Annual rental cost:

(likely) Maintenance cost:

Annual update with the new tariff rate costs:

Taximeter 2

Initial cost:

Annual rental cost:



Taximeter 3

Initial cost:

Annual rental cost:



Q6. Do you have any other observations or concerns that you would like to feedback to TfL?

Q7. If you would be happy to receive a call from us to discuss in more detail any of your answers,

please would you provide details here.

Name: _________________________________________

Tel No: _________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________

Appendix F – Card Payment Systems and Costs

1. CARD PAYMENT SYSTEMS & COSTS

1.1 Appendix

1.1.1 Table 1 below outlines system costs, including initial and ongoing costs for card payment device and taximeter suppliers. Additionally, where this information has been provided, the numbers of devices installed has also been outlined.

Table 1. Supplier System Costings (Correct as of October 2016)

SOLUTION

PROVIDER SYSTEM

INITIAL COSTS

(EXC VAT)

TRANSACTION

COSTS

CONTRACT

LENGTH OTHER COSTS

Cab:app Card payment device

(not linked) £80 2.7% None

Bracket: £44, fitting:

£67-£96, Bluetooth

printer: £204

PayPal Card payment device

(not linked)

£269 (includes: card

reader, printer and

mounts)

From 1.5% to 2.75%

depending on

volume

None

Fitting device in

passenger

compartment: £70

Farepay Ltd Card payment device

(not linked) No initial costs

3.95%

+20p/transaction 3 years None

Payleven Card payment device

(not linked)

£269 (includes: card

reader, printer and

mounts)

1.95% None None

CMT UK Card payment device

(linked) No initial costs 3.75% + 20p 3 years None

Taxiworld

Card payment device

and taximeter

(linked)

Taximeter: £96-

£162/year

3.75% +

20p/transaction Any point buy out

Optional £5 monthly

breakage insurance

SOLUTION

PROVIDER SYSTEM

INITIAL COSTS

(EXC VAT)

TRANSACTION

COSTS

CONTRACT

LENGTH OTHER COSTS

Verifone

Card payment device

and taximeter

(linked)

No initial costs 3.95% 2-3 years None

Cabvision

Card payment device

and taximeter

(linked)

No initial costs

1.95% + £1/day

or 2.95%

+16p/transaction

2 years Taximeter:

£1.30/day

Digitax Taximeter 1 year rental: £150

2 year rental: £240 N/A 1 -2 years None

Crincklewood

Carriers Taximeter £180-£199 N/A 2 years None

HAC Megameter Taximeter £149 N/A 1 year Reconfiguration:

£1,000

Appendix G – Stakeholder Consultation Material

TfL Taxi Fares and Tariff Review 2016 31/08/16

Reference number: 104103

INTERVIEW GUIDE: TRADE ASSOCIATIONS

TfL Taxi Fares and Tariff Review 2016 104103

Interview Guide 31/08/16 Page 2/5

Introduction

SYSTRA is an independent transport consultancy and research agency We have been commissioned by TfL to undertake an assessment of taxi tariff structure

Definitions

Black cab / taxi – vehicle holding a taxi vehicle licence, and driven by a holder of a taxi driver licence.

Minicab / Public Hire Vehicle (PHV) – vehicle issued with a TfL issued Private Hire Vehicle license and driven by a holder of a Private Hire Driver license vehicle

A: Industry Trends and Assessment of Demand

To set the context, please could you give me a brief overview of the organisation?

Who does the association represent, how many members does it have? In what ways does it represent its members?

In your opinion, what are the current industry trends?

Changes in share of market between taxis and minicabs? Technological innovation e.g. new methods of hiring?

What are the biggest challenges that your members are currently facing? o Prompts if necessary: minicab activity/market share; unlicensed (touting) activity;

congestion.

In your view, are the current levels of demand for taxis being met, or unmet?

If unmet, location-based, timing-based, or other? If unmet, how could this be overcome?



B: Driver Hours and Sensitivity to Changes in Hourly Revenue

From your organisation’s perspective, what criteria would indicate that a tariff system was working effectively?

PROMPTS: Level of driver supply, increased demand, low fares? Etc

What is your organisations’ view on the current tariff structure?

How effectively is it working? Are some tariff working better than others? Do you think it is correct to have different rates for different time periods? Is it providing enough supply for your customers (passengers)?

Are there any tariffs (1-4) that you think should be increased or decreased?

Are there any tariff periods (1-3) which you think be adjusted in terms of the times / days that they are in effect?

Should the minimum fare (£2.60 in London, £2.80 at Heathrow) be revised?

Increase / decrease / stay the same? o If change, to what / by how much?

Should Tariff 4, which comes into effect on journeys over 6 miles be revised?


How would your organisation feel about any proposal for a flat fare for certain journeys (for example, Heathrow to Central London) being introduced?

What impact do you think it would have? Positive / negative – for which groups?

How would your organisation feel about any proposal for a capped fare being introduced?


What are the potential pros and cons of making changes to existing tariff structure?

Pros and cons of making changes dependent on locations? Where? Pros and cons of making changes dependent on time of day/night? When?

Would changes to the tariff structure affect driver working patterns?

How? Positively or negatively?

Do your drivers work to/from Heathrow airport?

If yes, do these drivers typically always work there, or do they vary across locations? Why?

What are the pros and cons of changing the tariff structure at Heathrow? What would a successful Heathrow-specific tariff system look like to you?



C: Economic Review of Tariff Structure and Cost Index

Taxi fares are subject to annual review, based on changes to supply costs, known as the Cost Index:

Vehicle Cost Parts Tyres Garage & Servicing - Premises Garage & Servicing - Labour Fuel Insurance Miscellaneous The Knowledge Social Costs

What are your views on the suitability of basing annual fare uplifts on changes in estimated

supply costs?

Are the elements included in the Cost Index correct?

Are there different/other things it should be based on/take into account?

Do you believe the existing cost index is fit-for-purpose? Why/why not?

How could it be improved? Should it reflect market conditions and demand?

Do you have any comments on the sources of information used to create the index?

Are there more appropriate sources that could be used? Are there any other sources that should be included? E.g. card payment equipment

Is the weighting system appropriate, and can it be improved?

How should different working patterns be best reflected?

Are there any other factors overall that should be taken into account? How should changes, if there were to be any, be applied?

If possible, should they reflect market conditions and demand? (Currently ‘blanket’ rise across all times/tariffs) Should it be applied in a way that gives

bigger/lower rises at different times/tariffs/peak times etc.?



D: Review of Card Payment Details

What taxi meter and payment systems are most prevalently used by your members?

Is there a lot of diversity across the industry? Why? Do you have insight into costs?

Of the current meters and payment systems in place, which provide benefits and why are they beneficial?

Are there any drawbacks to current meters and payment systems used? Which systems and what are the drawbacks?

Do you have a preferred card payment mechanism?

If yes, which option and why? If no, what options should be considered/discounted?

Based on feedback from customers, TfL are investigating the idea of making it a requirement for card payment devices to be linked to taximeters.

How would your organisation respond to such a proposal? How would a proposal like this directly affect your organisation?

o Any impact? Any concerns? How do you think such a proposal would impact taxi drivers? Do you foresee any potential logistical challenges? If yes, how could these be

overcome?

E: Thank and Close

Do you have anything else you would like to add regarding the review? Thank you very much.



INTERVIEW GUIDE: HEATHROW TRADE ASSOCIATIONS


Draft Interview Guide 02/08/16 Page 2/5

Introduction

Introduce self and SYSTRA: independent transport consultancy and research agency Introduce project: assessment of taxi tariff structure, on behalf of TfL Interview will last about 1.5 hours – a lot to get through, apologies in advance if I interrupt and

move you on… Request permission to record meeting for own notes Research is conducted in accordance to the Market Research Code of Conduct and Data

Protection Act. Please could you tell me which organisation you represent?

Definitions




To begin, it would be helpful to gain an overview of the Heathrow market.

Do drivers that work at Heathrow tend to just work here, or also work across other parts of London? Why do you think that is? What proportion are just ‘Heathrow drivers’?

Is there a driver ‘type’ that works at Heathrow e.g. do they tend to be older, younger etc.? What are their main motivating factors for working at the airports, rather than in London?

What are Heathrow drivers’ typical working hours? How does this vary across drivers?

How much of this time is productive i.e. on jobs, vs unproductive – waiting at the park? Do they pick up jobs on the way to the airport at the beginning of their shift? If yes, where

are they coming from? If not, why not?

And regarding passengers:

Are the type of passengers at Heathrow similar to the typical business and leisure travellers in London? If not, how do they vary?




I’d now like us to discuss the tariff structure. What do you think of the current tariff system and how it works at Heathrow?

Are there any changes you would like to be made to the current system? If yes, what changes and why – what problem would this resolve? Our research is showing that over half of driver time is unproductive – is this a basis for

changing tariff structure? Could it be tweaked to make it more efficient? For instance, where there is excessive demand, could fares be inflated?







Should Heathrow have a different tariff structure from the rest of London?

If you could design the tariff structure from scratch, what would it look like? What problems would it overcome and how?

Are the current ‘extra’ charges appropriate? If not, how should they change?

Is the current minimum fare appropriate? If not, how should it change?


Pros and cons of making changes dependent on time of day/night? When?









supply costs?







Are there any sources that should be included specific to Heathrow?









What taxi meter and payment systems are most prevalently used by your members?

Is there a lot of diversity across the industry? Why? Do you have insight into costs?



Do you have a preferred card payment mechanism?

If yes, which option and why? If no, what options should be considered/discounted?




overcome?

E: Thank and Close

Do you have anything else you would like to add regarding the review before we close? Thank for time and comments.



INTERVIEW GUIDE: PASSENGER GROUPS



Introduction

Introduce self and SYSTRA: independent transport consultancy and research agency Introduce project: assessment of taxi tariff structure, on behalf of TfL Interview will last about 20-30 minutes Request permission to record meeting for own notes Research is conducted in accordance to the Market Research Code of Conduct and Data

Protection Act.

Definitions


Minicab– vehicle issued with a TfL issued Private Hire Vehicle license and driven by a holder of a Private Hire Driver license vehicle


To set the context, please could you give me a brief overview of your organisation?

And who you represent? How do the people you represent use black cabs?


Changes in share of market between black cabs and minicabs? Technological innovation e.g. new methods of hiring?

Do those you represent use black cabs

What are the main concerns and priorities people you represent have about black cabs?

In your view, are the current levels of demand for black cabs being met, or unmet?

If unmet, location-based, timing-based, or other? If unmet, how could this be overcome?



B: Tariffs and fares

From your organisation’s perspective, what criteria would indicate that a tariff system was

working effectively?


What is your organisations view on the current tariff structure?

How effectively is it working? Are some tariff working better than others? Do you think it is correct to have different rates for different time periods?













Would changes to the tariff structure affect supply of taxis for those you represent?




C: Review of Card Payment Details

From October this year, black cabs will be required to accept card payments. However, at present systems used vary in their technical specifications and the ways which passengers interface with them – for instance some systems are linked directly to taximeters, with a card terminal installed in the rear of the black cab, while others are not linked, and involve a single unit into which the driver manually enters the fare and passes to the passenger to use.

To what, if any, extent is variation in the type of machine, and the different setups experienced by passengers a concern for your organisation?

Any particular groups particularly impacted, what particular concerns?

If different to the current TfL requirements, what do you think the minimum standard of system should be?

Based on feedback from customers, TfL are investigating the idea of making it a requirement

for card payment devices to be linked to taximeters. Would your organisation support, or oppose if TfL proposed to require black cabs to have card

machines that linked directly to taxi meters?

D: Thank and Close




INTERVIEW GUIDE: TAXI BOOKING COMPANIES



Introduction

Introduce self and SYSTRA: independent transport consultancy and research agency Introduce project: assessment of taxi tariff structure, on behalf of TfL Interview will last about 40 minutes Request permission to record meeting for own notes Research is conducted in accordance to the Market Research Code of Conduct and Data

Protection Act.

Definitions




To set the context, please could you give me a brief overview of your organisation?

On what basis do cab drivers work for the company? What requirements do drivers need to meet in order to work with you?


Changes in share of market between taxis and minicabs? Technological innovation e.g. new methods of hiring?

What are the biggest challenges that your drivers are currently facing?

Prompts if necessary: minicab activity/market share; unlicensed (touting) activity; congestion.

In your view, are the current levels of demand for taxis being met, or unmet?

If unmet, location-based, timing-based, or other? If unmet, how could this be overcome? Do you have any data, based on booking requests, you could share with us?




From your organisation’s perspective, what criteria would indicate that a tariff system was working effectively?


What is your organisations’ view on the current tariff structure?

How effectively is it working? Are some tariff working better than others? Do you think it is correct to have different rates for different time periods? Is it providing enough supply for your customers (passengers)?















Do your drivers work to/from Heathrow airport?

If yes, do these drivers typically always work there, or do they vary across locations? Why?

What are the pros and cons of changing the tariff structure at Heathrow? What would a successful Heathrow-specific tariff system look like to you?







supply costs?















What taxi meter and payment systems are used by your drivers? By what proportion?

Is there a lot of diversity across the company? Why? If not: do you enforce a certain system, or are drivers able to choose their own? Are you able to provide insights into costs? (Initial costs, annual costs, transaction

costs.) Who covers the costs?






overcome?

E: Thank and Close


SYSTRA provides advice on transport, to central, regional and local government, agencies, developers, operators and financiers.

A diverse group of results-oriented people, we are part of a strong team of professionals worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real people in the real world.

For more information visit www.systra.co.uk

Abu Dhabi AS Business Centre, First Floor, Suites 201-213, Al Ain Road, Umm al Nar, P.O. Box 129865, Abu Dhabi, UAE T: +971 2 558 3809 F: +971 2 558 9961

Birmingham Second Floor, 37a Waterloo Street Birmingham B2 5TJ United Kingdom T: +44 (0)121 233 7680 F: +44 (0)121 233 7681

Dublin 1st Floor, 12/13 Exchange Place, Custom House Docks, IFSC, Dublin 1 Ireland T: +353 (0)1 542 6000 F: +353 (0)1 542 6001

Edinburgh Prospect House, 5 Thistle Street, Edinburgh EH2 1DF United Kingdom T: +44 (0)131 220 6966

Glasgow Seventh Floor, 124 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5HF United Kingdom T: +44 (0)141 225 4400

Lille 86 Boulevard Carnot, 59000 Lille, France T: +33 (0)3 74 07 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01

London Seventh Floor, 15 Old Bailey London EC4M 7EF United Kingdom T: +44 (0)20 7529 6500 F: +44 (0)20 3427 6274

Lyon 11, rue de la République, 69001 Lyon, France T: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 29 F: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 28

Manchester 25th Floor, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza Manchester M1 4BT United Kingdom T: +44 (0)161 236 0282 F: +44 (0)161 236 0095

Marseille 76, rue de la République, 13002 Marseille, France T: +33 (0)4 91 37 35 15 F: +33 (0)4 91 91 90 14

Newcastle PO Box 438, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE3 9BT United Kingdom T: +44 (0)191 2136157

Paris 72 rue Henry Farman, 75015 Paris, France T: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01

Woking Dukes Court, Duke Street Woking, Surrey GU21 5BH United Kingdom T: +44 (0)1483 728051 F: +44 (0)1483 755207

Hong Kong 14th Floor West, Warwick House, TaiKoo Place, 979 King's Road, Island East, Hong Kong T: +852 2529 7037 F: +852 2527 8490

Shenzhen Room 905, Excellence Mansion, No.98, No.1 Fuhua Road,

Futian Central Zone, Shenzhen, PRC, Post Code：518048

T：+86 755 3336 1898 F：+86 755 3336 2060

Shenzhen - Beijing Branch Office Room 1503, Block C, He Qiao Mansion, No. 8 Guanghua Road,

Chaoyang District, Beijing, PRC, Post Code：100026

T：+86 10 8557 0116 F：+86 10 8557 0126

Beijing Joint Venture Room 1507, Main Building, No. 60, Nan Li Shi Road,

Xi Cheng District, Beijing, PRC, Post Code：100045

T：+86 10 8807 3718 F：+86 10 6804 3744

Mumbai Antriksh, Unit no. 301, 3rd Floor, CTS Nos. 773, 773/1 to 7, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East , Mumbai 400069 T: +91 22 2647 3134

B 307, Great Eastern Summit Sector - 15, CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai - 400 614 T: +91 22 2757 2745

New Delhi 5th Floor Guru Angad Bhawan, 71 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 T: +91 11 2641 3310

Noida 3/F, C-131, Sector 2, Noida-201301, U.P. T: +91 120 432 6999

Singapore 25 Seah Street #04-01 Singapore 188381

T：+65 6227 3252 F：+65 6423 0178

Thailand 37th Floor, Unit F, Payatai Plaza Building,128/404-405 Payathai Road, Rajthewee, Bangkok 10400, Thailand

T：+662 216 6652 F：+662 216 6651

Vietnam 5/F Perfect Building, Le Thi Hong Gam St, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

T：+84 8 3821 7183 F：+84 8 3821 6967

Taxi Fares and Tariffs Review 2016 - Transport for London · on the supply and demand of London...

Documents

Transcript of Taxi Fares and Tariffs Review 2016 - Transport for London · on the supply and demand of London...