sefton metropolitan borough council

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Hackney Carriage Demand Survey Final Report July 2010

Halcrow Group Limited

Halcrow Group Limited Arndale House Otley Road Headingley Leeds LS6 2UL Tel +44 (0)113 220 8220 Fax +44 (0)113 274 2924 www.halcrow.com Halcrow has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of their client, Sefton Council, their sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. © Halcrow Group Limited 2010

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Hackney Carriage Demand Survey Final Report July 2010


Halcrow Group Limited Arndale House Otley Road Headingley Leeds LS6 2UL Tel +44 (0)113 220 8220 Fax +44 (0)113 274 2924 www.halcrow.com

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Hackney Carriage Demand Survey Final Report July 2010 Contents Amendment Record This report has been issued and amended as follows: Issue Revision Description Date Signed

Contents

1 Background 3 1.1 General 3 1.2 Relevant Entry Control Regulations 3 1.3 Sefton Overview 4 1.4 Background to the Hackney Carriage Market in Sefton 4 1.5 Provision of Hackney Carriage Stands 4 1.6 Hackney Carriage Fares and Licence Premiums 7 1.7 Local Transport Plan 2 10

2 Benchmarking 12 2.1 Introduction 12 2.2 Fleet Composition 12 2.3 Entry Control Policy 17 2.4 Fares 17 2.5 Comparison of fares 19

3 Definition, Measurement and Removal of Significant Unmet Demand 20 3.1 Introduction 20 3.2 Overview 20 3.3 Defining Significant Unmet Demand 20 3.4 Measuring Patent Significant Unmet Demand 22 3.5 Determining the Number of New Licences Required to Eliminate Significant Unmet Demand 24 3.6 Note on Scope of Assessing Significant Unmet Demand 26

4 Evidence of Patent Unmet Demand – Rank Observation Results 27 4.1 Introduction 27 4.2 The Balance of Supply and Demand 27 4.3 Average Delays and Total Demand 28 4.4 The Delay/Demand Profile 30 4.5 The Generality of Passenger Delay 31 4.6 Sefton Compared to Other Districts 32

5 Evidence of Suppressed Demand - Public Attitude Pedestrian Survey Results 34 5.1 Introduction 34 5.2 Safety & Security 39 5.3 Ranks 40

5.4 Landaus and Pedicabs 41

6 Consultation 43 6.1 Introduction 43 6.2 Direct Consultation 43 6.3 Indirect Consultation 46 6.4 Comments Received 46

7 Trade Survey 50 7.1 Introduction 50 7.2 Survey Administration 50 7.3 General Operational Issues 50 7.4 Driving 51 7.5 Safety & Security 53 7.6 Ranks 54 7.7 Vehicle Age Restrictions 55 7.8 Training 55 7.9 Taxi Market in Sefton 56

8 Deriving the Significant Unmet Demand Index Value 67 8.1 Introduction 67

9 Summary and Conclusions 68 9.1 Introduction 68 9.2 Significant Unmet Demand 68 9.3 Consultation – Interested Parties 68 9.4 Consultation – General Public 69 9.5 Consultation - Trade 69 9.6 Conclusion 70

1

Glossary of Terms

Average Passenger Demand (APD). This is used when calculating the ISUD. It is derived from the rank observations and refers to the passenger delay across the whole week in minutes.

Average Cab Delay. This refers to how long a hackney is waiting at a rank for a fare.

Average Delays and Total Demand. This indicates the overall level of passengers and cab delays and provides estimates of total demand;

Balance of Supply and Demand. This indicates the proportion of the time that the market exhibits excess demand, equilibrium and excess supply;

Cab Departures. This is the number of hackneys leaving a rank with or without passengers

Demand/Delay Profile. This provides a summary of passenger demand and delay by time of day and day of week. It is one of the key pieces of information required to determine the existence or otherwise of significant unmet demand;

Effective Supply of Vehicles. This indicates the proportion of the fleet that was off the road during the survey.

Excess Demand. The number of passengers exceeds the provision of hackney carriages.

Excess Supply. The number of cabs exceeds the number of passengers.

General Incidence of Delay (GID). This is the proportion of passengers who travel in hours where the delay exceeds one minute and is used when calculating the ISUD.

Index of Significant Unmet Demand (ISUD). This is the measure used to calculate whether there is any unmet demand. It takes into account both patent and latent demand. The cut off level for significant unmet demand is 80.

Latent Demand. Also referred to as ‘suppressed demand’. This is the public’s perception of unmet demand and is calculated from the public attitude surveys and rank observations.

Passenger Delay. This is the passenger waiting time at ranks.

Passenger Departures. This is the number of passengers leaving a rank in a hackney carriage.

2

Patent Demand. Observed demand calculated from rank observations.

Peaking Factor (PF). This provides dispensation for the ability of the trade to meet demand, and is used when calculating the ISUD. High peaking is identified when there is a high level of demand on weekend nights compared to other times.

Proportions of Passengers Experiencing Given Levels of Delay. This provides a guide to the generality of passenger delay; and

Seasonality Factor (SF). This refers to whether or not the rank observations were conducted during a ‘typical’ month e.g. September to November and March to June as it is recognised there is a degree of seasonality in hackney demand. Different values are used when calculating the ISUD for typical and untypical months.

Significant Unmet Demand (SUD). Is the term used to define if there is demand for hackney carriages which is not being met. There are two components of Significant Unmet Demand, patent and latent demand. These are used to calculate the ISUD.

Significant Unmet Demand Simulation (SUDSIM). When the ISUD value is more than 80, indicating significant unmet demand, the SUDSIM model is used to calculate the number of additional licences required to eliminate significant unmet demand.

Steady State Performance (SSP). This is the proportion of hours during weekday daytimes where passenger queues form at ranks. It is used when calculating the ISUD.

.

3

1 Background

1.1 General 1.1.1 This study has been conducted by Halcrow on behalf of Sefton Metropolitan Borough

Council (SMBC) in pursuit of the following objectives:

• to identify whether or not there exists a significant unmet demand for hackney carriage services in Sefton ;

• to recommend the increase in licences required to eliminate any significant unmet demand.1

1.1.2 The remainder of this section of the report provides a general background to the taxi

market in Sefton and the relevant legislation governing the market.

1.2 Relevant Entry Control Regulations 1.2.1 Under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, a licensing authority had an unfettered

discretion to limit the number of hackney carriage licences by being able to licence only such numbers as it thought fit. It was a power, which was widely used by many authorities to restrict the numbers of hackney carriages for the purpose of exercising control and supervision over them. Under the Transport Act 1985, the position in law changed and the 1847 Act, as now amended by Section 16, provides as follows:

1 In 2006 the DfT produced ‘Best Practice Guidance’ for taxi licensing (revised in 2010). The guidance also restated that the DfT considers it to be best practice not to impose quantity restrictions. However where restrictions are imposed, the Department urges that the matter is regularly reconsidered.

The DfT guidance is just that, guidance. We are unaware of any actual (or proposed) change in legislation that would affect the legal standing of an entry control policy in the context of local hackney carriage markets. The large body of well established case law and precedent should be unaffected by this guidance. Notwithstanding this, the local authority may wish to take this guidance into consideration when determining its policy, particularly given the forthright way in which DfT chooses to express its views on entry control in Paragraph 31.

4

“That the grant of a licence may be refused for purposes of limiting the number of hackney carriages…, if but only if, the person authorised to grant a licence is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages… which is unmet”.

1.2.2 The Act also provides for an appeals procedure whereby unsuccessful applicants for hackney carriage licences may call upon an authority to demonstrate that it is satisfied that there exists no significant unmet demand. If, in the eyes of the Court, the Authority fails to meet this requirement, the appeal against the refusal to issue a licence will be successful.

1.3 Sefton Overview 1.3.1 Sefton is a metropolitan borough and is situated north of Liverpool on the west coast of

England. It incorporates major towns such as Southport, Crosby and Bootle. Southport is recognised as one of Britain’s leading seaside resorts and England’s golf capital.

1.3.2 The population of Sefton was 282,958 in the 2001 Census and it was estimated at 275,000 in mid-2008 (SMBC, 2009).

1.4 Background to the Hackney Carriage Market in Sefton 1.4.1 SMBC currently licences 271 hackney carriage licences giving a hackney provision of

one vehicle per 1,015 resident population. Some 461 drivers hold hackney carriage licences in Sefton. The private hire fleet consists of approximately 2,699 vehicles. In view of the size of this fleet relative to the hackney carriage fleet, it is evident that the private hire fleet is the dominant force in the Sefton taxi market.

1.5 Provision of Hackney Carriage Stands 1.5.1 There are currently 49 official ranks located in the Sefton borough licensing district. A

list of all these ranks is appended to the report.

1.5.2 Plates 1 to 4 show the main ranks in Sefton borough.

5

Plate 1 Lord Street, Southport

Plate 2 St Georges Place, Southport

6

Plate 3 Derby Road (Central 12 Shopping Park), Southport

Plate 4 Stanley Road, Bootle

7

1.6 Hackney Carriage Fares and Licence Premiums 1.6.1 Hackney carriage fares are regulated by the Local Authority. There are three standard

tariffs. Tariff 1 operates 5am-11pm daily and Tariff 2 operates daily 11pm– 5am and on bank holidays other than Christmas and New Year. Tariff 3 is for hiring’s over Christmas and New Year. There are also a series of extra charges for tolls and fouling of the vehicle.

1.6.2 The standard charge tariff is made up of three elements; an initial fee (or “drop”) of £1.60 for entering the vehicle and travelling any distance up to 242.80 yards or 60 seconds waiting time. For each additional 227.20 yards or 60 seconds waiting time up to a distance of 1,606 yards travelled the charge is 20p. Thereafter for each additional 260.70 yards or 60 seconds waiting time the charge is 20p. A standard two-mile daytime fare would therefore be £4.40. Table 2.2 outlines the fare structure in more detail.

8

Table 2.2 Sefton Hackney Carriage Fare Tariff 2010

Price

Tariff 1 (5.00am – 11pm Daily) First 242.80 yds (222.02 metres) and 60 seconds or part of

For each 227.20 yds (207.76 meters) or 60 seconds or uncompleted part thereof up to a distance of 1606 yards

For each 260.70 yds (238.39 meters) or 60 seconds or uncompleted part thereof

60 seconds waiting time or part thereof

£1.60

20p

20p

20p

Tariff 2 (11pm – 5.00am Daily and bank holidays other than Christmas and New Year) First 242.80 yds (222.02 metres) and 60 seconds or part of




£2.00

25p

30p

30p

Tariff 3 (6pm Christmas eve until 6am on the 27th December and 6pm New Years Eve until 6am on the 2nd January First 242.80 yds (222.02 metres) and 60 seconds or part of




£2.40

30p

30p

30p

Extra Charges (at all times) All tolls payable – For both outward and return journeys

Fouling charge due to any cause

-

£40.00

Source: Sefton Council

1.6.3 Fares in Sefton are below the average compared to what is typical elsewhere in the UK. In the published monthly league table, Sefton is rated 345th of the 380 authorities cited (Private Hire and Taxi Monthly, July 2010). Table 2.3 provides a comparison of where neighbouring and nearby authorities rank in terms of fares.

9

Table 2.3 Comparison of Neighbouring Authorities in Terms of Fares (figures are ranked out of a total of 380 Authorities with 1 being the most expensive)

Local Authority Rank

Blackpool 61

Manchester 141

Bolton 154 Liverpool 260

Wigan 273

Wirral 274

Warrington 289

Blackburn 333

Sefton 345 Knowsley 354

Source: Private Hire and Taxi Monthly, July 2010

1.6.4 Where local hackney carriage markets are subject to both price and entry regulation, it has commonly been the case that a rent accrues to the ownership of the vehicle licence. This rent or “premium” is difficult to assess accurately as the re-sale of vehicle licences is not encouraged by the Authority. Anecdotal evidence provided to the authority estimates a licence premium of approximately £8,000 in Sefton. This premium has dropped recently and is lower than exists in other authorities.

1.6.5 The existence of a licence premium is evidence of “excess” profit; that is, profit that would not exist if the level of supply of hackney carriages was determined by the market rather than by the Regulator. Licence premiums do not exist in Authorities where quantity controls are absent. This does not mean that we judge hackney carriage proprietors in Sefton to be making too much money. It is not within our remit to comment on what is or is not an appropriate rate of remuneration from hackney carriage operation. The term “excess” profit simply means that earnings from plying for hire are higher at present than they would be if a free entry policy was introduced.

1.6.6 Although a premium is a clear indicator of higher than “market” profits it is not necessarily an indicator of significant unmet demand. Where a premium exists, this may be due to low cab waiting time associated with under-supply, and hence passenger delays. Alternatively, it may be due to a fares level, which is higher than the break-even

10

level for a given supply. Finally, it may simply be a reflection of the absence of alternative means of gaining employment.

1.7 Local Transport Plan 2 1.7.1 This section considers the taxi market within a wider context of transport policy. Taxis

provide an important service for the public and have the potential to form an important part of an integrated public transport system.

1.7.2 The Local Transport Plan process requires local authorities to consider, in a holistic manner, how transport provision for their area contributes to wider objectives such as economic growth, accessibility and the environment. Taxis are an integral part of local transport provision and should be taken into account within this provision.

1.7.3 The main objectives of Merseyside’s LTP2 are:

• Provide appropriate infrastructure to improve the capacity and efficiency of the transport network and support areas where the economy is growing;

• Provide access for everyone to services such as employment, education and health; and

• Manage demand for travel to ensure that our roads do not become congested and affect the efficient movement of public transport and freight.

1.7.4 The role of taxis is an essential part of the LTP process. Taxis can be an important mode of transport for business, tourism as well as providing transport for journeys which are difficult to undertake using conventional public transport, such as journeys late at night, in areas of where public transport is inadequate, for those with mobility difficulties or for travellers with a large amount to carry. Their flexibility (and increasingly their design) promotes travel opportunities, particularly for those with physical disabilities and those visiting Sefton for the first time, who may find other forms of public transport difficult to use.

1.7.5 With regard to taxis the Merseyside LTP2 has developed a 5 year programme which aims to;

11

• Investigate more use of taxis to link with other demand responsive modes as part of the development of the DRT;

• Provide a more robust monitoring regime to share future policy within three years;

• Provide assistance to other modes such as night buses when there is a clear objective to clear the city and town centre as safely as possible;

• Develop the Merseyside Taxi Training Scheme (MTTS) to focus on customer care and DDA issues; and

• Improve taxi ranks, new information provision and better integration with the public transport network.

12

2 Benchmarking

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 In order to assess the current level of taxi provision in Sefton it is necessary to

benchmark Sefton against other authorities which are its statistically nearest neighbours2.

2.1.2 The statistically nearest neighbours are authorities which are of similar socio-economic standing to Sefton and can be used for comparison purposes. They include; Blackpool, Bolton, Bury, Calderdale, Darlington, Dudley, North Tyneside, Plymouth, Redcar and Cleveland, Southend-on-Sea, St Helens, Stockport, Tameside and Wirral.

2.1.3 Sefton has been benchmarked against similar authorities on the following elements:

• Fleet composition;

• Entry Control Policy; and

• Fares.

2.2 Fleet Composition 2.2.1 Figure 2.1 documents the fleet size for the benchmarked authorities. Plymouth has the

largest fleet of hackney carriages at 360 vehicles whilst Sefton has the fourth largest (271 vehicles) out of the fourteen licensing authorities. With regard to the private hire fleets Sefton has a significantly larger fleet (2,699 vehicles).

2.2.2 In terms of the population per hackney, Figure 2.2 documents the results for the licensing authorities. Figure 2.2 demonstrates that Calderdale has a significantly higher number of people per hackney carriage (lower provision) compared with the other licensing authorities, whilst Redcar and Cleveland has the lowest amount of people per hackney carriage (highest provision). Sefton’s level of provision is slightly higher than average.

2 Audit Commission classification

13

2.2.3 However, if per capita provision is looked at in terms of the whole fleet (i.e. hackneys and hire cars) as in Figure 2.3, it appears that Sefton has the highest per capita provision (best provision) with Darlington having the worst.

14

Figure 2.1 Fleet composition in Sefton Compared to other Similar Authorities

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Blackp

ool

Dudley

Bolton

Southe

nd-on

-sea

BuryStoc

kport

Plymou

thDarl

ington

Wirral

North T

ynes

ideCald

erdale

Tames

ide

Redca

r & C

levela

ndSeft

onSt H

elen's

Num

ber o

f Veh

icle

s

Private Hire

Hackney Carriages

15

Figure 2.2 Population per hackney across the different licensing authorities (a lower value represents higher levels of provision)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Calderd

aleSt H

elen's

Bolton

Stockp

ort BuryTa

meside

Dudley

Wirral

Sefton

Blackp

ool

North T

ynes

idePlym

outh

Southe

nd-on

-sea

Darling

ton

Redca

r & C

levela

nd

Num

ber o

f Peo

ple

per h

ackn

ey c

arria

ge

16

Figure 2.3 Combined hackney and hire car fleet provision per capita

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

500.0

Darling

tonTa

meside

Blackp

ool

Redca

r & C

levela

nd

Southe

nd-on

-sea

Bolton

St Hele

n'sDud

leyCald

erdale

Stockp

ortWirra

lPlym

outh

North T

ynes

ide BurySeft

on

Num

ber o

f Peo

ple

17

2.3 Entry Control Policy 2.3.1 Table 2.1 documents the entry control policies for the 14 licensing authorities. Bury,

Darlington, Dudley, and Wirral are amongst the only licensing authorities that do not enforce a numerical limit.

Table 2.1 Entry Control Policy for the Authorities

Authority Market Entry Policy

Blackpool Restricted

Bolton Restricted Bury Derestricted

Calderdale Restricted

Darlington Derestricted

Dudley Derestricted North Tyneside Restricted

Plymouth Restricted

Redcar and Cleveland Derestricted Sefton Restricted

Southend-on Sea Restricted

St Helen’s Restricted Stockport Restricted

Tameside Restricted

Wirral Derestricted

2.4 Fares 2.4.1 Figure 2.4 details the average fare for a two mile journey across the benchmarked

authorities during a typical weekday daytime period. The average cost of a two mile journey is £4.90, thereby highlighting that fares in Sefton are cheaper than the average at £4.40.

18

Figure 2.4 Average Fare for a Two Mile Journey

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Blackp

ool

Dudley

Bolton

Southe

nd-on-se

aBury

Stockpo

rtPlym

outh

Darlingto

nWirra

l

North Tyn

eside

Calderdale

Tames

ide

Redcar &

Clev

eland

Sefton

St Helen's

£

FareAverage Fare

19

2.4.2 In addition to undertaking the benchmarking of fares in the previous chapter it is necessary to determine how fares compare with other public transport modes.

2.4.3 A number of journeys have been determined and the fares reviewed for hackney carriage, private hire and bus. Further information is detailed below.

2.5 Comparison of fares 2.5.1 Figure 2.5 documents the average cost for journeys of two, five and ten miles across

Sefton by hackney, private hire and bus/rail.

Figure 2.5 Average cost of a journey

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

2 5 10

Miles

£

HackneyPHV BootlePHV SouthportBus/Rail

2.5.2 As detailed in Figure 2.5 hackney fares are more expensive than private hire fares across all length of journeys.

G:\Trad-Stan\Processes\Taxi Licensing Review\Demand Survey\Demand Survey Final Report Issued 100910.doc 20

3 Definition, Measurement and Removal of Significant Unmet Demand

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Section 3 provides a definition of significant unmet demand derived from experience of

over 100 unmet demand studies since 1987. This leads to an objective measure of significant unmet demand that allows clear conclusions regarding the presence or absence of this phenomenon to be drawn. Following this, a description is provided of the SUDSIM model which is a tool developed to determine the number of additional hackney licences required to eliminate significant unmet demand, where such unmet demand is found to exist.

3.2 Overview Significant Unmet Demand (SUD) has two components:

• patent demand – that which is directly observable; and • “suppressed” demand – that which is released by additional supply.

3.2.1 Patent demand is measured using rank observation data. Suppressed (or latent) demand is assessed using data from the rank observations and public attitude interview survey. Both are brought together in a single measure of unmet demand, ISUD (Index of Significant Unmet Demand).

3.3 Defining Significant Unmet Demand 3.3.1 The provision of evidence to aid licensing authorities in making decisions about hackney

carriage provision requires that surveys of demand be carried out. Results based on observations of activity at hackney ranks have become the generally accepted minimum requirement.

3.3.2 The definition of significant unmet demand is informed by two Court of Appeal judgements:

• R v Great Yarmouth Borough Council ex p Sawyer (1987); and • R v Castle Point Borough Council ex p Maude (2002).


3.3.3 The Sawyer case provides an indication of the way in which an Authority may interpret the findings of survey work. In the case of Sawyer v. Yarmouth City Council, 16 June 1987, Lord Justice Woolf ruled that an Authority is entitled to consider the situation from a temporal point of view as a whole. It does not have to condescend into a detailed consideration as to what may be the position in every limited area of the Authority in relation to the particular time of day. The area is required to give effect to the language used by the Section (Section 16) and can ask itself with regard to the area as a whole whether or not it is satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand.

3.3.4 The term “suppressed” or “latent” demand has caused some confusion over the years. It should be pointed out that following Maude v Castle Point Borough Council, heard in the Court of Appeal in October 2002, the term is now interpreted to relate purely to that demand that is measurable. Following Maude, there are two components to what Lord Justice Keene prefers to refer to as “suppressed demand”:

• what can be termed inappropriately met demand. This is current observable demand that is being met by, for example, private hire cars illegally ranking up; and

• that which arises if people are forced to use some less satisfactory method of travel due to the unavailability of a hackney carriage.

3.3.5 If demand remained at a constant level throughout the day and week, the identification

and treatment of significant unmet demand would be more straight-forward. If there were more cabs than required to meet the existing demand there would be queues of cabs on ranks throughout the day and night and passenger waiting times would be zero. Conversely, if too few cabs were available there would tend to be queues of passengers throughout the day. In such a case it would, in principle, be a simple matter to estimate the increase in supply of cabs necessary to just eliminate passenger queues.

3.3.6 Demand for hackney carriages varies throughout the day and on different days. The problem, introduced by variable demand, becomes clear when driver earnings are considered. If demand is much higher late at night than it is during the day, an increase in cab supply large enough to eliminate peak delays will have a disproportionate effect on the occupation rate of cabs at all other times. Earnings will fall and fares might have to be increased sharply to sustain the supply of cabs at or near its new level.

3.3.7 The main implication of the present discussion is that it is necessary, when considering whether significant unmet demand exists, to take account of the practicability of improving the standard of service through increasing supply.


3.4 Measuring Patent Significant Unmet Demand 3.4.1 Taking into account the economic, administrative and legal considerations, the

identification of this important aspect of significant unmet demand should be treated as a three stage process as follows:

• identify the demand profile; • estimate passenger and cab delays; and • compare estimated delays to the demand profile.

3.4.2 The broad interpretation to be given to the results of this comparison are summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Existence of Significant Unmet Demand (SUD) Determined by Comparing Demand and Delay Profiles

Delays during peak only Delays during peak and other times

Demand is: Highly Peaked Not Highly Peaked

No SUD Possibly a SUD

Possibly a SUD Possibly a SUD

3.4.3 It is clear from the content of the table that the simple descriptive approach fails to provide the necessary degree of clarity to support the decision making process in cases where the unambiguous conclusion is not achievable. However, it does provide the basis of a robust assessment of the principal component of significant unmet demand. The analysis is therefore extended to provide a more formal numerical measure of significant unmet demand. This is based on the principles contained in the descriptive approach but provides greater clarity. A description follows.

3.4.4 The measure feeds directly off the results of observations of activity at the ranks. In particular it takes account of:

• case law that suggests an authority should take a broad view of the market; • the effect of different levels of supply during different periods at the rank on

service quality; • the need for consistent treatment of different authorities, and the same authority

over time.


3.4.5 The Index of Significant Unmet Demand (ISUD) was developed in the early 1990’s and is based on the following formula. The Seasonality Factor (SF) element was introduced in 2003 and the LDF element was introduced in 2006 to reflect the increased emphasis on latent demand in DfT Guidance

ISUD = APD x PF x GID x SSP x SF x LDF

Where: APD = Average Passenger Delay calculated across the entire week. PF = Peaking Factor. If passenger demand is highly peaked at night the factor

takes the value of 0.5. If it is not peaked the value is 1. Following case law this provides dispensation for the effects of peaked demand on the ability of the Trade to meet that demand. To identify high peaking we are generally looking for demand at night (at weekends) to be substantially higher than demand at other times.

GID = General Incidence of Delay. This is measured as the proportion of

passengers who travel in hours where the delay exceeds one minute. SSP = Steady State Performance. The corollary of providing dispensation

during the peaks in demand is that it is necessary to focus on performance during “normal” hours. This is measured by the proportion of hours during weekday daytimes when the market exhibits excess demand conditions (i.e. passenger queues form at ranks).

SF = Seasonality factor. Due to the nature of these surveys it is not possible

to collect information throughout an entire year to assess the effects of seasonality. Experience has suggested that hackney demand does exhibit a degree of seasonality and this is allowed for by the inclusion of a seasonality factor. The factor is set at a level to ensure that a marginal decision either way obtained in an “untypical” month will be reversed. This factor takes a value of 1 for surveys conducted in September to November and March to June, i.e. “typical” months. It takes a value of 1.2 for surveys conducted in January and February and the longer school holidays, where low demand the absence of contract work will bias the results in favour of the hackney trade, and a value of 0.8 for surveys conducted in December during the pre Christmas rush of activity. Generally, surveys in these atypical months, and in school holidays, should be avoided.

LDF = Latent Demand Factor. This is derived from the public attitude survey

results an provides a measure of the proportion of the public who have given up trying to obtain a hackney carriage at either a rank or by


flagdown during the previous three months. It is measured as 1+ proportion giving up waiting. The inclusion of this factor is a tactical response to the latest DfT guidance.

3.4.6 The product of these six measures provides an index value. The index is exponential

and values above the 80 mark have been found to indicate significant unmet demand. This benchmark was defined by applying the factor to the 25 or so studies that had been conducted at the point it was developed. These earlier studies had used the same principles but in a less structured manner. The highest ISUD value for a study where a conclusion of no significant unmet demand had been found was 72. The threshold was therefore set at 80. The ISUD factor has been applied to over 80 studies by Halcrow and has been adopted by others working in the field. It has proved to be a robust, intuitively appealing and reliable measure.

3.4.7 Suppressed/latent demand is explicitly included in the above analysis by the inclusion of the LDF factor and because any known illegal plying for hire by the private hire trade is included in the rank observation data. This covers both elements of suppressed/latent demand resulting from the Maude case referred to above and is intended to provide a ‘belt and braces’ approach. A consideration of latent demand is also included where there is a need to increase the number of hackney carriage licences following a finding of significant unmet demand. This is discussed in the next section.

3.5 Determining the Number of New Licences Required to Eliminate Significant Unmet Demand

3.5.1 To provide advice on the increase in licences required to eliminate significant unmet demand, Halcrow has developed a predictive model. SUDSIM is a product of 20 years experience of analysing hackney carriage demand. It is a mathematical model, which predicts the number of additional licences required to eliminate significant unmet demand as a function of key market characteristics.

3.5.2 SUDSIM represents a synthesis of a queue simulation work that was previously used (1989 to 2002) to predict the alleviation of significant unmet demand and the ISUD factor described above (hence the term SUDSIM). The benefit of this approach is that it provides a direct relationship between the scale of the ISUD factor and the number of new hackney licences required.

3.5.3 SUDSIM was developed taking the recommendations from 14 previous studies that resulted in an increase in licences, and using these data to calibrate an econometric model. The model provides a relationship between the recommended increase in licences and three key market indicators:


• the population of the licensing Authority; • the number of hackneys already licensed by the licensing Authority; and • the size of the SUD factor.

3.5.4 The main implications of the model are illustrated in Figure 3.1 below. The figure shows that the percentage increase in a hackney fleet required to eliminate significant unmet demand is positively related to the population per hackney (PPH) and the value of the ISUD factor over the expected range of these two variables.

Figure 3.1 Forecast Increase in Hackney Fleet Size as a Function of Population Per Hackney (PPH) and the ISUD Value

3.5.5 Where significant unmet demand is identified, the recommended increase in licences is therefore determined by the following formula:

New Licences = SUDSIM x Latent Demand Factor Where:

• Latent Demand Factor = (1 + proportion giving up waiting for a hackney at either a rank or via flagdown)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

100 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

ISUD Value

% in

crea

se in

lice

nces

500

1000

2000

3000

PPH


3.6 Note on Scope of Assessing Significant Unmet Demand 3.6.1 It is useful to note the extent to which a licensing authority is required to consider

peripheral matters when establishing the existence or otherwise of significant unmet demand. This issue is informed by R v Brighton Borough Council, exp p Bunch 19893. This case set the precedent that it is only those services that are exclusive to hackney carriages that need concern a licensing authority when considering significant unmet demand. Telephone booked trips, trips booked in advance or indeed the provision of bus type services are not exclusive to hackney carriages and have therefore been excluded from consideration.

3 See Button JH ‘Taxis – Licensing Law and Practice’ 3rd edition Tottel 2009 P257-258


4 Evidence of Patent Unmet Demand – Rank Observation Results

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 This section of the report highlights the results of the rank observation survey. The rank

observation programme covered a period of 602 hours. During the hours observed some 17,527 passengers and 15,068 cab departures were recorded. A summary of the rank observation programme is provided in Appendix 1.

4.1.2 The results presented in this Section summarise the information and draw out its implications. This is achieved by using five indicators:

• The Balance of Supply and Demand – this indicates the proportion of the time that the market exhibits excess demand, equilibrium and excess supply;

• Average Delays and Total Demand – this indicates the overall level of

passengers and cab delays and provides estimates of total demand;

• The Demand/Delay Profile – this provides the key information required to determine the existence or otherwise of significant unmet demand;

• The Proportions of Passengers Experiencing Given Levels of Delay – this

provides a guide to the generality of passenger delay; and

• The Effective Supply of Vehicles – this indicates the proportion of the fleet that was off the road during the survey.

4.2 The Balance of Supply and Demand 4.2.1 The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.1 below. The predominant market

state is one of equilibrium. Excess supply (queues of cabs) was experienced during 19% of the hours observed while excess demand (queues of passengers) was experienced in 4% of hours. Conditions are most favourable to customers during the weekend day and weekday day periods. Conditions were least favourable to customers on Sundays.

4.2.2 Table 4.1 also shows that excess demand has decreased since the previous study undertaken by Halcrow 10 years ago.


Table 4.1 The Balance of Supply and Demand in the Sefton Rank-Based Hackney Carriage Market (Percentages – Rows Sum to 100)

Period Excess Demand Equilibrium Excess Supply

Day 2 67 31 Weekday Night 3 91 7

Day 4 65 30 Weekend Night 4 85 11

Sunday Day 7 87 6

All 2010 4 77 19

All 2000 7 82 11 NB – Excess Demand = Maximum Passenger Queue ≥3. Excess Supply = Minimum Cab Queue ≥3 – values derived over 12 time periods within an hour.

4.3 Average Delays and Total Demand 4.3.1 The following estimates of average delays and throughput were produced for each of the

main ranks in Sefton. (Table 4.2).

4.3.2 The survey suggests some 17,527 passenger departures occur per week from ranks in Sefton involving some 15,068 cab departures. However it should be noted that at a number of ranks cab departures are greater than the level of passenger departures – this may be due to hackney carriages undertaking work from a private hire circuit.

4.3.3 The taxi trade is somewhat concentrated across a small number of ranks with the Stanley Road rank near Wetherspoon’s in Bootle and Washington Parade in Bootle, accounting for 31% of the total trade respectively. On average, passengers wait 0.38 minutes for a cab. The greatest passenger delay occurs at Lord Street outside the Casino in Southport, where passengers wait an average of 2.50 minutes for a taxi.

4.3.4 Since the previous study undertaken in 2000 passenger delay and passenger demand has increased.


Table 4.2 Average Delays and Total Demand (Delays in Minutes)

Rank Passenger Departures

Cab Departures

Average Passenger Delay

Average Cab Delay

Green Car Park, Crosby 362 472 1.08 18.19

South Road, Waterloo 159 308 0.98 2.12

Duke Street, Formby 240 250 1.93 9.47

Green Lane, Formby 72 54 0.00 76.25

Shore Road, Ainsdale 2 15 0.00 45.77

Coronation Walk, Southport 358 356 0.00 39.01

West Street, Southport 48 41 0.00 113.15

Lord Street, Southport (near Alliance & Leicester) 1,554 1,041 0.00 24.35

St Georges Place, Southport 421 380 0.01 36.58

Lord Street, Casino, Southport 14 29 2.50 6.58

Southport Train Station 1,733 1,880 0.39 11.64

Derby Road, Central 12, Southport 1,843 1,700 1.43 4.53

Southport Hospital 634 737 1.78 6.01

Wellington Road, Litherland 165 389 0.17 25.81

Glovers Lane, Netherton 620 603 0.06 25.05

Washington Parade, Bootle 2,522 1,724 0.00 14.97

Stanley Road, Bootle (near M&S) 1,805 1,311 0.01 19.89

Stanley Road, Bootle (near McDonalds) 896 763 0.57 28.02

Stanley Road, , Bootle (outside Wetherspoons) 2,887 2,052 0.00 17.22

Stanley Road, Bootle (near Sullivan’s) 47 104 0.00 16.90

Tulketh Street, Southport 393 255 0.23 43.00

Bridal Road, Netherton 347 315 0.00 48.98

Weld Parade, Birkdale 406 291 1.25 56.52

Total 2010 17,527 15,068 0.38 19.02

Total 2000 17,180 11,930 0.28 12.95

Please note that not all the same ranks were observed for each study


4.4 The Delay/Demand Profile 4.4.1 Figure 4.1 provides a graphical illustration of passenger demand for the Monday to

Saturday period between the hours of 08:00 and 04:00.

Figure 4.1 Passenger Demand by Time of Day in 2010 (Monday to Saturday)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3

Hour Starting

Ave

rage

Pas

seng

ers

Weekday

Weekend

All Week2 per. Mov. Avg. (All Week)

4.4.2 The level of peaking late at night relative to the daytime is high; we therefore conclude that this is a ‘highly peaked’ demand profile. This has implications for the interpretation of the results.

4.4.3 Figure 4.2 provides an illustration of passenger delay by the time of day for the weekday and weekend periods. It indicates incidences of passenger delay peak at weekday days at 1800 where delay peaks to 4 minutes. There is some delay in the evening between 2000 and 2200 on weekends with delay peaking to just over one minute. For all other times of day the level of passenger delay is generally less than one minute.


Figure 4.2 Passenger Delay by Time of Day in 2010 (Monday to Saturday)

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Min

utes

Hour Starting

Weekday

Weekend

4.5 The Generality of Passenger Delay 4.5.1 The rank observation data can be used to provide a simple assessment of the likelihood

of passengers encountering delay at ranks. The results are presented in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3 General Incidence of Passenger Delay (Percentages)

Year Delay > 0 Delay > 1 minute Delay > 5 minutes

2010 7.36 4.25 0.55

2000 17.84 8.08 0.65

4.5.2 In 2010 the proportion likely to experience more than a minute of delay is 4.25%. This

has decreased by half since the survey undertaken in 2000. It is this proportion that is used within the ISUD as the ‘Generality of Passenger Delay’.


4.6 Sefton Compared to Other Districts 4.6.1 Comparable statistics are available from 52 local authorities and these are listed in Table

4.4. The table highlights a number of key results including:

• population per hackney carriage at the time of the study (column one);

• the proportion of rank users travelling in hours in which delays of greater than zero, greater than one minute and greater than five minutes occurred (columns two to four);

• average passenger and cab delay calculated from the rank observations (columns five to six);

• the proportion of Monday to Thursday daytime hours in which excess demand was observed (column seven);

• the judgement on whether rank demand is highly peaked (column eleven); and

• a numerical indicator of significant unmet demand.

4.6.2 The following points (obtained from the rank observations) may be made about the results in Sefton compared to other areas studied:

• population per hackney carriage is slightly lower than the average overall value i.e. Sefton has a slightly higher than average provision;

• the proportion of passengers, who travel in hours where some delay occurs, is 7.36%, which is much lower than the average (24%) for the areas analysed;

• overall average passenger delay at 0.38 minutes is lower than the average value;

• overall average cab delay is higher than the average for the districts shown; and

• the proportion of weekday daytime hours with excess demand conditions are observed is 4% which is below the average.


5 Evidence of Suppressed Demand - Public Attitude Pedestrian Survey Results

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Some 1,086 on-street public interview surveys were carried out in June and July 2010. A

quota was followed so that the survey reflected the age and gender characteristics of the local community. This, in turn, ensured that broadly representative results were obtained.

5.1.2 A full breakdown and analysis of the results and the survey form are provided in Appendix 3.

5.1.3 The survey found that 61.6% of respondents in Sefton had used a taxi (hackney or private hire) in the last three months. The results are displayed in Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1 Made a trip by taxi in the last 3 months

62%

38%

Yes

No


5.1.4 Trip makers were asked how they obtained their hackney carriage or private hire vehicle. Almost three quarters of hirings were achieved by telephone (73%) with 16.5% of trip makers stating that they hired their vehicle at a rank. Figure 5.2 reveals the pattern of hire.

Figure 5.2 Method of Hire for Last Trip

17%

10%

73%

Rank

Flagdow n

Telephone

5.1.5 The most common type of vehicle hired was a saloon car (76.5%) with 20.9% hiring a purpose built cab.

5.1.6 Respondents were asked if they were satisfied with the time taken and the promptness of the vehicle’s arrival. The majority of people were satisfied (96%). Figure 6.3 shows that for each method of obtaining a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle, the majority were satisfied with the service. When compared with the results from the 2000 survey it is clear that satisfaction has increased.


Figure 5.3 Satisfaction with Delay on Last Trip by Method of Hire

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Rank Flagdown Telephone

No

Yes

5.1.7 Respondents were asked what time of day they obtained their hackney carriage or private hire vehicle, and whether they could have made the journey by another mode. The results are documented in figure 5.4 and show that less respondents had an alternative mode available to them when travelling after 10pm.

Figure 5.4 Alternative mode available by time of day

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Day (bef ore 6pm) Evening (6pm-10pm) Night (af t er 10pm)

No

Yes


5.1.8 Those respondents that had an alternative mode available to them were asked what mode they could have used. The results are displayed in figure 5.5 and show that the bus became less of an alternative after 10pm, as did the car and cycling. However walking appeared to be more of an alternative than at other times.

Figure 5.5 Alternative modes available

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Day (before 6pm) Evening (6pm-10pm) Night (after 10pm)

%

Cycle

Walk

Train

Car

Bus

5.1.9 In order to measure demand suppression, respondents were asked to identify whether or not they had given up waiting for a taxi at a rank, on the street, or by telephone in the district in the last three months. The results are documented in figure 5.6.


Figure 5.6 Latent demand by method of hire – Given up trying to make a hiring?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Given up rank Given upflagdow n

Given uptelephone

Given up rank/f lag

Perc

enta

ge

5.1.10 Figure 5.6 indicates that 14.7% of respondents had given up waiting for a vehicle at a rank or by flagdown. This is the value used to measure demand suppression.

5.1.11 Those respondents who had given up waiting for a hackney or private hire vehicle were asked within what district of Sefton they were waiting. The most popular answers were:

• Southport (36.3%); • Bootle (21.1%); • Crosby (6.8%); • Litherland (4.4%); • Formby (2.8%); and • Birkdale (2.0%)


5.1.12 Respondents were asked if they thought the hackney and private hire service in Sefton could be improved. The responses indicate that the majority of respondents (61.4%) thought that the services in Sefton did not need to be improved. The results are documented in figure 5.7.

Figure 5.7 Could taxi services be improved?

39%

61%

Yes

No

5.2 Safety & Security 5.2.1 Respondents were asked whether they felt safe when using hackney carriage and

private hire services in Sefton. The majority of respondents felt safe using hackneys and private hire vehicles during the day (98%) and at night (91.2%) in Sefton.

5.2.2 Those respondents who did not feel safe during the day and/or at night were asked what needed to be done to improve safety and security when using hackney carriages and private hire vehicles in Sefton. Figure 5.8 highlights that some 49% (47 respondents) would feel safer if there was CCTV in the vehicle, and 28.1% (27 respondents) would like to see CCTV on ranks and taxi marshals on ranks. A number of respondents stated that they would like to see more women drivers.


Figure 5.8 Improvements to safety and security when using taxis in Sefton (multiple responses)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

CCTV in Taxis CCTV on ranks More Taxi Marshals Other

%

5.3 Ranks 5.3.1 Respondents were asked if they were satisfied with the provision of taxi ranks in Sefton.

The majority of respondents (63%) were satisfied with the provision of ranks, only 11% of respondents were unsatisfied and 26% stated that they did not know. Of those that stated they were unsatisfied with the provision of ranks, they were asked what could be done to improve them. Some 65.8% commented that new ranks should be provided and 14.5% stated that more information on the location of ranks is needed. Suggested locations for new ranks included:

• Marshside; • Bigger rank on Lord Street; • Maghull; and • Netherton.

5.3.2 Other suggestions for improvements included:

• More women drivers; • Improved vetting of drivers; • More policing; • Panic button for drivers and passengers;


• Text message with drivers details when hired; • Shelters at ranks.

5.4 Landaus and Pedicabs 5.4.1 Respondents were asked whether they had ever used a landaus or pedicabs in Sefton.

Figure 5.9 highlights that only 8.9% of respondents had used a pedicabs or landaus in Sefton.

Figure 5.9 Have you used a pedicabs or landaus in Sefton?

8.9

91.1

Yes No

5.4.2 Those respondents who stated that they had not were asked why. The most common responses were:

• Don’t know what they are; • Never Seen any; and • No need to use one

5.4.3 Finally, respondents were asked whether they consider there to be a sufficient number of landaus and pedicabs in Sefton. The majority of people commented that they did not know.


Summary Key results from the Public Attitude Survey can be summarised as:

• 61.6% of respondents in Sefton had used a taxi in the last 3 months; • Almost three quarters of hirings were achieved by telephone (72.9%) with 16.8% of trip makers stated that

they hired their taxi at a rank. • High levels of satisfaction with delay on last trip; • Majority of respondents had not given up waiting for a taxi in the last three months with 14.7% stating they

had given up trying to obtain a vehicle by rank and/or flagdown in Sefton; • Some 61.4% of respondents said that taxi services in Sefton did not need to be improved; and • Majority of respondents felt safe using taxis during the day and night in Sefton.


6 Consultation

6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Guidelines issued by the Department for Transport state that consultation should be

undertaken with the following organisations and stakeholders:

• all those working in the market; • consumer and passenger (including disabled) groups; • groups which represent those passengers with special needs; • the Police; • local interest groups such as hospitals or visitor attractions; and • a wide range of transport stakeholders such as rail/bus/coach providers and

transport managers.

6.2 Direct Consultation 6.2.1 A number of organisations were given the opportunity to attend a series of focus groups

to discuss issues regarding the taxi market in Sefton. Separate meetings were organised with the following:

• Hackney Carriage Trade Representatives; • Private Hire Trade Representatives; • Planning, Regeneration, Town Management and Tourism council

representatives; • Police; and • Disability Representatives

6.2.2 The comments from those attending the organised meetings are summarised below and appended in full in Appendix 4.

Hackney Carriage Trade

6.2.3 Representatives from the North Sefton Hackney Carriage Association and South Sefton Hackney Carriage Association attended the focus group. The representatives commented that there is no unmet demand in Sefton, the trade are having to work longer hours to make a living. It was also noted that a large proportion of the private hire trade work outside of the borough.


6.2.4 The representatives commented that there are a lot of ranks across the Sefton borough however they require frequent reviews in order to ensure adequate rank provision exists where appropriate. There is currently a demand for rank space at South Road, Waterloo and Moor Lane, Crosby.

6.2.5 The representatives commented that the NVQ in Road Passenger Transport can be difficult for existing drivers who have not completed the VRQ as they are requested to learn the material without assistance or resources. Some aspects of the course were thought to be incorrect, it was stated that no training on the use of disabled facilities is provided and the VRQ is often undertaken in 15 hours, instead of the required 70 hours. The trade were however in favour of new drivers undertaking both the VRQ and NVQ.

6.2.6 It was felt that vehicle standards have recently improved and are high in relation to fares in Sefton.

Private Hire Trade

6.2.7 Representatives from both Delta and Berry Street Garage attended the focus group. It was felt that a limit on the number of hackney carriage vehicles is essential. More and more people prefer to travel in a private hire vehicle for the convenience of a door to door service. Private hire companies also keep a record of each passenger and provide customer care services such as lost property.

6.2.8 The representatives commented that hackney carriages present safety issues when they over rank. It often occurs in loading bays and means that private hire drivers find it difficult to safely unload passengers.

6.2.9 With regard to the image of the private hire trade, the representatives commented that it is at its highest ever and is getting better. Delta has policies in place for random vehicle inspections. It was also stated that many drivers prefer to buy new cars, again increasing the trade’s image. With regard to the hackney carriage fleet, it was felt that the image is appalling, particularly in the south of the borough, which has a poor reflection on the rest of the borough.

6.2.10 The NVQ has improved customer care and driver attitudes and at Delta, is used as a rehabilitation tool when drivers have been suspended from work.


6.2.11 The representative commented that there is unmet demand on a Saturday night however, all private hire vehicles are equipped with GPS enabling a quicker and more efficient service.

Disability Representatives

6.2.12 Halcrow Group Ltd attended the Sefton Accessibility Forum. It was commented that the majority of drivers are helpful when transporting those with disabilities, however there are a few who refuse to take guide dogs. Additionally some vehicles do not have belts available to properly secure wheelchairs, meaning that wheelchair users are often required to hold on to internal rails.

6.2.13 The representatives felt that drivers would benefit from training provided by disabled people, particularly on aspects such as loading and fixing wheelchairs into the vehicle. It was also felt that the NVQ level 2 in Road Passenger Transport should be compulsory for all drivers.

6.2.14 It was considered that there are insufficient wheelchair accessible vehicles. One member of the forum mentioned that there are no wheelchair accessible vehicles in Formby. It was felt that all new taxis should be wheelchair accessible and it was requested that a range of vehicles should be available across Sefton.

6.2.15 The representatives commented that it can be particularly difficult to order a taxi during peak hours as a large amount of drivers have contracts with social services transporting children to school.

Driver Training, Hugh Baird College

6.2.16 A representative from Hugh Baird College attended the focus group. The college offers both the VRQ in Road Passenger Transport and the NVQ in Road Passenger Transport. The VRQ provides students with the theory behind Road Passenger Transport and prepares them for the NVQ which focuses more on the practical applications.

6.2.17 It is compulsory for new drivers to undertake the VRQ and the knowledge test before they gain their badge. Existing drivers may undertake a fast track VRQ which involves one session a week for six weeks.


6.2.18 The college has received positive feedback from those who have taken part, some have even gone on to train others and are now employed by the college part time. All the assessors and trainers have been taxi drivers at some point in their career.

6.2.19 The representative commented that some changes to the existing programme, such as additional training on the knowledge test and sessions on exam techniques, would be beneficial.

6.2.20 The representative stated that there was a lot of funding at the start of the programme which meant that the course would run every couple of weeks. However, the amount of funding has now reduced so it runs less often. In the response to redundancies, anyone unemployed is able to do the course for free. Those who are employed can pay a reduced rate of £150 which is refunded if they complete the NVQ.

6.3 Indirect Consultation 6.3.1 In addition to the face to face consultation undertaken a number of stakeholders were

contacted by letter. This in turn assured the DfT guidelines were fulfilled and all relevant organisations and bodies were provided with an opportunity to comment. Copies of all the replies are included in Appendix 4.

6.3.2 In accordance with advice issued by the DfT the following organisations were contacted:

• Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council ;

• user/disability groups representing those passengers with special needs;

• local interest groups including hospitals, visitor attractions, entertainment outlets and education establishments; and

• rail, bus and coach operators.

6.4 Comments Received 6.4.1 The comments received are summarised below and appended in full to this report.

Traffic Services, Planning and Economic Regeneration, Sefton Council

6.4.2 A representative from traffic services responded to the written consultation. It was commented that hackney carriages primarily operate and rank at opposite ends of the Borough, namely Bootle and Southport. It was felt that an adequate number of cabs are visible on ranks in both Bootle and Southport throughout the day and night. The representative suggested that the south of the Borough (Bootle and Crosby) is more


than adequately served as Delta Taxis is one of Merseyside’s largest private hire firms. Southport has a number of smaller private hire companies but again, large numbers can be seen across Southport throughout the day and night.

6.4.3 With regard to the provision of ranks in the borough, the representative stated that any requests for additional ranks or changes to existing ones are made directly to the Traffic Services Unit as per the policy approved by both sides of the trade. Any changes to ranks are consulted upon with numerous representatives including both hackney carriage and private hire organisations, before being put to the relevant Area Committee for approval. The Traffic Services Unit has never had any complaints about the accessibility of ranks.

6.4.4 The representative commented that both sides of the taxi trade are fully integrated into the Merseyside Local Transport Plan, and are seen as a valuable public service. In Sefton, both private hire and hackney carriage vehicles are treated exactly the same, and are exempt from numerous Traffic Regulation Orders, such as bus lanes and Prohibition of Driving Orders.

Merseylearn, Merseytravel

6.4.5 A representative from Merseylearn responded.. Based on feedback received from drivers who have completed the training, and operators of radio firms, it was felt that training can greatly improve the image of the trade. The training is carried out to National Occupational Standards and portrays a professional image to both users and organisations such as Merseylearn, school transport allocators, social services and the NHS.

6.4.6 Training provided by Merseylearn covers both the theory elements of being a taxi driver and how to apply the theory in a practical situation. Areas covered by the training include, disability awareness, health and safety, dealing with difficult customers, topographical knowledge and driving passenger transport vehicles.

6.4.7 It was felt that Sefton Council, along with the hackney carriage trade, take their responsibilities towards their customers and their drivers seriously and are willing to go the extra mile to have a constantly improving service.

Sefton East Parishes Area Committee


6.4.8 A representative from Sefton East Parishes Area Committee commented that there is an inadequate supply of hackney carriage vehicles in Sefton East and it can be difficult to acquire a private hire vehicle during busy periods.

6.4.9 It was felt that the image of the trade with regard to vehicle and driver quality is ‘good’. However, the representative stated that there are no ranks in Sefton East and there is a lack of accessible vehicles available.

6.4.10 The representative felt that the level and structure of fares in Sefton is average, although it was felt that there is insufficient advertising of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles. The representative commented that they feel safe using both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles.

6.4.11 Finally it was felt that Sefton would benefit from de-restricting the number of hackney carriages.

Melling Parish Council

6.4.12 Melling Parish Council responded to the consultation, stating that the provision of both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles is adequate. However, given the inadequacy of public transport services in parts of the parish area and at certain times, a community bus facility would be beneficial to Melling residents. Should a private hire firm wish to consider offering such a service they would be supported by the Parish Council.

Peterhouse School

6.4.13 A representative from Peterhouse School, an independent special school for children aged 5-19, responded to the consultation. With regard to the provision of hackney carriage vehicles, the representative commented that they had seen very few in the area. On the other hand, the provision of private hire services, particularly Delta, was considered to be very good, having an extensive service across all times of the day throughout the borough.

6.4.14 With regard to the image of the private hire trade, the representative commented that many vehicles look dated, although the quality and attitudes of drivers was considered to be ‘good’, particularly when travelling with children with disabilities.


6.4.15 It was not felt that any additional ranks are needed in the Sefton Borough. In order to make taxis more accessible, the representative commented that larger vehicles could be provided for people with autism.

6.4.16 The representative felt that the level and structure of fares in Sefton is medium although publicity of both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles could be improved. The representative from Peterhouse School stated that they feel safe whilst using taxis in Sefton and that taxis are readily available to take people to other transport links.


7 Trade Survey

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 A trade survey was designed with the aim of collecting information and views from both

trades. In particular the survey allowed an assessment of operational issues and views of the hackney carriage market to supplement the rank observations, as well as covering enforcement and disability issues. The following Section summarises the results of the trade survey and full results are presented in Appendix 5.

7.2 Survey Administration 7.2.1 The survey was conducted through a self completion questionnaire. These were sent to

all 4,050 licensed public and private hire drivers and operators in Sefton. A total of 296 (7.3%) questionnaire forms were completed and returned. It should be noted that not all totals sum due to the total number of respondents per trade group as some respondents failed to answer all questions.

7.3 General Operational Issues 7.3.1 The responses provided have been disaggregated on a hackney carriage and private

hire trade as shown in Figure 7.1 below.

Figure 7.1 Breakdown of Responses between Trades

30%

70%

Hackney Carriage Trade Private Hire Trade


7.3.2 Figure 7.2 indicates that 67.8% of hackney carriage respondents have been involved in the Sefton taxi trade for over 10 years as have 42.8% of the private hire trade. This may simply indicate that longer serving drivers were more willing to take part in the survey.

Figure 7.2 Duration of the respondents involvement in the hackney carriage trade/private hire trade.

0

5

1015

20

25

30

3540

45

50

0 – 2 2 – 5 5 – 10 10 – 15 15 – 20 Over 20

Years

%HC

PH

7.4 Driving 7.4.1 Respondents were asked the average number of hours they worked in a typical week.

The hackney carriage trade worked on average 52 hours per week, whilst the private hire trade worked for 54 hours per week.

7.4.2 Respondents were asked to state how many hours they worked at different times of day during a typical week. Figure 7.3 documents the average hours worked during the daytime period (06:00-18:00) for each day of the week. On average, the hackney carriage trade work for more hours during the daytime than the private hire drivers. It also shows that both trades tend to work less hours during the day on the weekends than during the weekdays.


Figure 7.3 Average daytime hours worked

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun

Hou

rs HC

PH

7.4.3 Figure 7.4 shows the average number of hours worked during the evening/night period (18:00-06:00). During the night time period the private hire drivers work, on average, longer hours than the hackney carriage drivers. It also shows that both trades work for longer hours on a Friday and Saturday night compared with other nights during the week.

Figure 7.4 Average night time hours worked

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


Hou

rs HC

PH


7.4.4 The trade were asked whether the Licensing Act 2003 had had an effect on their typical working week. Some 52.4% of hackney carriage respondents stated that it had had an effect on them compared with 36.9% of private hire respondents.

7.4.5 Responses were similar across both trades with 63.8% of the hackney carriage responses and 61.3% of the private hire trades responses stating that they had to work later in the evening. Some 70.2% of hackney carriage respondents and 63.8% of private hire respondents commented that they work longer hours.

7.4.6 Respondents were asked to state the number of times they carry disabled passengers on a weekly basis. Some 38.1% of hackney carriage respondents and 67% of private hire respondents were typically more likely to carry between one and five disabled persons per week.

7.5 Safety & Security 7.5.1 Respondents were asked if they felt safe whilst working as a taxi driver in Sefton, the

results of which are shown below in figure 7.5. Some 51.2% of hackney carriage respondents stated that they felt safe some of the time compared to 67.5% of private hire respondents.

Figure 7.5 Do you feel safe whilst working as a Taxi Driver in Sefton?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yes, all of the time Some of the time None of the time

%HC

PH


7.5.2 The respondents were then asked when they felt unsafe working in Sefton. Figure 7.6 documents that the majority of both the hackney carriage respondents (86%) and private hire respondents (74.8%) stated that they felt unsafe whilst working at night in Sefton.

7.5.3 Some 30% of hackney carriage respondents and 50.4% of private hire respondents feel unsafe in certain areas of Sefton. The areas that were most commonly suggested as being unsafe were Kirkdale, Norris Green, Bootle, Croxteth and Anfield.

Figure 7.6 When do you feel unsafe as a taxi driver in Sefton?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Day time Night time In certain areas

%HC

PH

7.6 Ranks 7.6.1 Members of both trades were asked whether they believe there is sufficient rank space

in Sefton. The majority of the hackney carriage respondents (83.7%) stated that there was not sufficient rank space for hackneys, whereas in contrast the majority of private hire respondents felt that there was sufficient rank space (63.5%).

7.6.2 The trade were asked whether there were any areas where a new rank should be located. Some 82.9% of the hackney carriage respondents state that there are areas in Sefton where there should be new hackney carriage ranks. In contrast the majority of private hire respondents (89.7%) said that there should be no new ranks.

7.6.3 Of those that stated that there should be new ranks, the most common areas requested were Lord Street, Southport and South Road, Waterloo.


7.6.4 In response to the question asking whether there are any ranks in Sefton that should be longer or have more spaces, 75% of the hackney carriage trade felt this was necessary, whereas 88.7% of the private hire trade said that there was no requirement. The most common suggested locations for extending ranks were South Road, Waterloo, North Road, Southport, Liverpool Road and Lord Street, Southport.

7.7 Vehicle Age Restrictions 7.7.1 Members of both trades were asked whether they felt current hackney carriage

conditions relating to age and frequency of testing were satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Table 7.1 highlights that just over half of the hackney carriage respondents (75%) think the current vehicle conditions are satisfactory whilst just over three quarters of private hire respondents were of the same opinion (79.7%).

Table 7.1 Are the current hackney carriage and private hire vehicle conditions reasonable?

Hackney Carriage Trade Private Hire Trade Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Satisfactory 63 75.0 157 79.7 Unsatisfactory 21 25.0 40 20.3

Total 84 100.0 197 100.0

7.7.2 Members of both trades were also asked whether they consider the current number and locations of testing stations to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The majority of hackney carriage respondents (77.1%) thought the number and locations were satisfactory as do 75.6% of the private hire respondents.

7.8 Training 7.8.1 Both trades were asked if they felt that taxi drivers receive enough training before being

granted a taxi drivers licence. The majority of the hackney carriage trade (54.2%) were of the opinion that training was insufficient compared with 56.2% of the private hire trade. Those respondents who stated that they didn’t think they received sufficient training were then asked what training they would like to see offered to drivers The results are shown in Table 7.2 below.


Table 7.2 Opinions related to training (Multiple Response)


English Language 39 73.6 101 79.5 Customer Care 36 67.9 82 64.6

Disability Awareness 32 60.4 66 52.0

Driving Ability Test 30 56.6 88 69.3

Other 11 20.8 35 27.6

7.8.2 Hackney respondents felt that English Language, Customer Care and Disability

Awareness training are the most important training they would like to see offered to drivers. The private hire drivers were of a similar opinion. Of those that stated other training, the most common suggestions was a harder knowledge test of the Sefton area.

7.8.3 Respondents were then asked whether the training should be compulsory or voluntary. Of those who answered this question, some 83.3% of the hackney carriage trade and 92.7% of the private hire trade felt the training should be compulsory.

7.9 Taxi Market in Sefton 7.9.1 Members of both trades were asked if they were aware that Sefton Council enforces a

numerical limit of 271 on the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences in Sefton. The results are outlined in Figure 7.7.


Figure 7.7 Were you aware that there is a numerical limit on the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences in Sefton?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes No

%HC

PH

7.9.2 The majority of hackney carriage respondents were aware of the numerical limit (72.9%) compared with just 29.1% of the private hire respondents.

7.9.3 Members of both trades were asked whether they consider there to be sufficient hackney carriages to meet the current level of demand in Sefton. Figure 8.8 indicates that almost two thirds of respondents from the hackney carriage trade (64.7%) consider there to be too many hackney carriages to meet the demand in Sefton, compared to 40.5% of private hire drivers.


Figure 7.8 Do you consider there to be sufficient hackney carriages to meet the current level of demand in Sefton?

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Yes, too many

Yes, suff icient

No, not during allperiods of the day

No Opinion

Don’t Know

%

PH

HC

7.9.4 Those who felt there was an insufficient number of hackney carriages were asked when they felt more were required. Of those who answered the question both the majority of hackney carriage and private hire drivers felt that more hackney carriages were needed at all times of the day and night with 80% and 50% respectively.

7.9.5 All respondents were asked to state what they thought the ideal fleet size for hackney should be in Sefton. The results are detailed in figure 7.9. Of those drivers who responded, 54.4% of the hackney carriage trade felt that the hackney carriage fleet size should be less than the present number, compared to 53.3% of private hire respondents.

7.9.6 The average size of Hackney Carriage fleet considered for Sefton was 241 for the hackney carriage trade compared with 258 cited by the private hire trade.


Figure 7.9 Opinion of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire trade of the Ideal Hackney Carriage Fleet Size in Sefton.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Under 271 Current limit 271 Over 271

%HC

PH

7.9.7 All respondents were asked to state if they thought that Sefton Council should remove the numerical limit on the number of hackney carriage vehicle. The responses are detailed in Figure 7.10.


Figure 7.10 Should Sefton MBC remove the numerical limit?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes No No opinion

%

HC

PH

7.9.8 The majority of respondents from the hackney carriage trade (87.1%) felt that the numerical limit should not be removed, compared to 60.3% of private hire respondents. Some 13.6% of private hire respondents wished for the limit to be removed.

7.9.9 Views were sought regarding the likely impact on a series of factors if Sefton Council were to remove the existing limit on hackney carriage licences. The findings are summarised below and presented in Table 7.3.

Congestion 7.9.10 The majority of respondents from the hackney carriage trade (79%) felt congestion

would increase, compared to 57.1% from the private hire trade felt this would be the case.

Fares 7.9.11 Some 40.2% of hackney carriage respondents considered that fares would decrease

following de restriction, with 57.1% of the private hire trade stating that there would be no change.

Passenger Waiting Times 7.9.12 The majority of hackney carriage respondents believe that passenger waiting times at

ranks, when flagged or when booked by telephone would not be affected. The majority


of private hire drivers considered that waiting times at ranks or when flagging a taxi would either decrease or have no effect if the existing limit on the number of licences was removed.

Vehicle Quality 7.9.13 Over half of respondents from the hackney carriage trade felt hackney vehicle and

private hire vehicle quality would decrease, compared to over half of the private hire trade respondents stating that there would be no change.

Effectiveness of Enforcement 7.9.14 With regard to effectiveness of enforcement, 53.8% of the hackney carriage trade were

of the opinion that removing existing licence restrictions would result in a decrease. Over a third of the private hire trade felt that it would decrease (41.8%).

Illegal Plying for Hire 7.9.15 In terms of illegal plying for hire by private hire vehicles, 31.4% of the private hire trade

were of the opinion that a change in licence restriction conditions would have no effect on this activity, compared to only 6.1% of hackney carriage drivers.

Over Ranking 7.9.16 Both the hackney carriage and private hire trade felt over ranking would increase, with a

response of 89.3% and 74.2% respectively.

Customer Satisfaction 7.9.17 Over one third of private hire drivers (44.9%) were of the opinion that customer

satisfaction would not be affected as a result of the removal of the licence limit, compared to 47.4% of the hackney trade.


Table 7.3 Opinions Relating to the Impact of De-Restriction

Hackney Carriage Trade Private Hire Trade Increase No

Effect Decrease Increase No

Effect Decrease

Traffic Congestion 79.0 21.0 0.0 57.1 40.6 2.4 Fares 20.7 39.0 40.2 15.5 57.1 27.4

Passenger waiting times at ranks 5.2 75.3 19.5 5.4 41.1 53.6

Passenger waiting time when flagdown

3.8 78.5 17.7 3.6 41.3 55.1

Passenger waiting time by telephone 6.4 79.5 14.1 7.2 50.6 42.2

Hackney carriage vehicle quality 12.5 26.3 61.3 11.8 51.5 36.7

Private hire vehicle quality 5.3 35.5 59.2 17.3 57.0 25.7

Effectiveness of enforcement 6.4 39.7 53.8 18.2 41.8 40.0

Illegal plying for hire – private hire 68.3 25.6 6.1 36.5 42.9 20.6

Illegal plying for hire – unlicensed 55.8 39.0 5.2 38.4 43.6 18.0

Over ranking 89.3 8.3 2.4 74.2 15.7 10.1

Customer satisfaction 10.3 47.4 42.3 26.1 44.9 29.0

7.9.18 All respondents were asked their response to “There is not enough work to support the current number of hackney carriages”. The results in table 7.4 show that the majority of hackney carriage respondents (87%) strongly agree or agree with the statement that there is not enough work to support the current number of hackney carriages. Some 62.8% of private hire respondents were of the same opinion.


Table 7.4 Opinion of: “There is not enough work to support the current number of hackney carriages”?


Strongly disagree 6 7.1 12 6.7 Disagree 1 1.2 18 10.0

Neither agree nor disagree 4 4.7 37 20.6

Agree 20 23.5 39 21.7

Strongly agree 54 63.5 74 41.1

Total 85 100.0 180 100.0

7.9.19 Some of the most common responses to the statement:

• Not enough work. • Long waiting times between fares and full ranks • Too many cabs • Too many private hire licences issued

7.9.20 The survey then asked opinions of the following statement; “Removing the limit on the number of hackney carriages in Sefton would benefit the public by reducing waiting times at ranks”. The results in table 7.5 shows that 82.9% of hackney carriage drivers strongly disagreed or disagreed that removing the limit on the number of hackney carriages in Sefton would benefit the public by reducing waiting times at ranks, compared with 46.1% of Private Hire respondents.


Table 7.5 Opinion of: “Removing the limit on the number of hackney carriages in Sefton would benefit the public by reducing waiting times at ranks”?




Agree 3 3.7 38 22.8


Total 82 100.0 167 100.0

7.9.21 Some of the most common responses to the statement included there are already queues of cabs on ranks and the public rarely wait.

7.9.22 The survey then asked opinions of the following statement; “There are special circumstances in Sefton that make the retention of the numerical limit essential”. The results in table 7.6 show that 77.3% of hackney carriage trade agree or strongly agree that there are special circumstances in Sefton that make the retention of the numerical limit essential, compared with 41.3% of private hire respondents.

Table 7.6 Opinion of: “There are special circumstances in Sefton that make the retention of the numerical limit essential”




Agree 10 12.8 28 18.1


Total 78 100.0 155 100.0


7.9.23 Some of the most common responses to the statement:

• Not aware of any special circumstances • No unmet demand • Not enough work

7.9.24 Finally the trade were asked what effect they thought it would have on them if the authority removed the numerical limit. The results show in figure 7.11 that 68.6% of hackney carriage responses cited they would work more hours if the numerical limit of hackney carriages was removed, as would 48.1% of private hire respondents. Some 50% of hackney responses stated that they would leave the trade if Sefton derestricted. In contrast 32% of private hire drivers said they would not change if the limit was removed, and 11% said they would switch from private hire to hackney.

7.9.25 Of those respondents who stated another effect de restriction would have, the main concerns were that they would not make enough money and so would have to work longer hours.

Figure 7.11 Effect on the trade if the numerical limit was removed (Multiple responses)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

No change

Work more hours

Work few er hours

Acquire a hackney vehicle licence

Acquire more than one hackney vehicle licence

Sw itch from hackney to private hire

Sw itch from private hire to hackney

Leave the trade

Other

%

PHHC


Summary Key findings from the survey can be summarised as follows:

• The majority of the hackney carriage respondents have been involved in the trade for over 10 years; • Some 38.1% of hackney carriages carry disabled passengers between once and five times a week

compared to 67% of private hire respondents; • Some 51.2% of hackney carriage respondents and 67.5% of private hire respondents stated that they felt

unsafe some of the time whilst working in Sefton; • Some 83.7% of hackney carriage respondents stated that there was not sufficient rank space in Sefton,

whilst 63.5% of private hire respondents said there was sufficient rank space; • Some 54.2% of hackney carriage respondents said training is insufficient, as did 56.2% of private hire

respondents; and • The majority of hackney carriage respondents (87.1%) thought the numerical limit on hackney licences

should not be removed compared to 60.3% of private hire respondents.


8 Deriving the Significant Unmet Demand Index Value

8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 The data provided in the previous chapters can be summarised using Halcrow’s ISUD

factor described in Section 2.

8.1.2 The component parts of the index, their source and their values are given below:

Average Passenger Delay (Table 4.2) 0.38

Peak Factor (Figure 4.1) 0.5

General Incidence of Delay (Table 4.4) 4.25

Steady State Performance (Table 4.1) 2

Seasonality Factor (paragraph 3.4.5) 1

Latent Demand Factor (paragraph 5.1.10) 1.147

ISUD (0.38*0.5*4.25*2*1*1.147) 2

8.1.3 The cut off level for a significant unmet demand is 80. It is clear that Sefton is below this cut off point, indicating that there is NO significant unmet demand. This conclusion covers both patent and latent/suppressed demand.


9 Summary and Conclusions

9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 Halcrow has conducted a study of the hackney carriage market on behalf of Sefton

Metropolitan Borough Council.

9.1.2 The present study has been conducted in pursuit of the following objectives:

• to identify whether or not there exists a significant unmet demand for hackney carriage services in Sefton;

• to recommend the increase in licences required to eliminate any significant unmet demand.

9.1.3 This section provides a brief description of the work undertaken and summarises the

conclusions and implications for regulatory policy.

9.2 Significant Unmet Demand 9.2.1 The 2010 study has identified that there is NO evidence of significant unmet demand for

hackney carriages in Sefton. This conclusion is based on an assessment of the implications of case law that has emerged since 2000, and the results of Halcrow’s analysis. Passengers obtaining a hackney carriage at a rank in Sefton are waiting for an average of only 23 seconds. By contrast, hackney carriages are waiting on the ranks for an average of 19 minutes for each fare.

9.2.2 On this basis the authority has discretion in its hackney licensing policy and may either:

• continue to limit the number of vehicles at 271; • issue any number of additional plates as it sees fit, either in one allocation or a

series of allocations; or • remove the limit on the number of vehicles and allow a free entry policy.

9.3 Consultation – Interested Parties 9.3.1 The Department for Transport had requested that licensing authorities consult widely to

inform their policy making in respect of continued entry control to the hackney carriage market. In addition to the consultation that has routinely been included in previous market studies (correspondence with interested parties), Halcrow has followed the prescribed approach and sought the views of all those involved in the taxi trade.


9.3.2 Views were mixed with regards to the current policy of restricting the number of hackney carriages. A number of stakeholders felt that there is a need for more wheelchair accessible taxis in Sefton. It was also felt that driver quality is generally good, but can be improved further through training, the NVQ in particular.

9.4 Consultation – General Public 9.4.1 The key results from the Public Attitude Survey can be summarised as follows:

• 61.6% of respondents in Sefton had used a taxi in the last three months; • Almost three quarters of hirings were achieved by telephone (72.9%) with 16.8% of

trip makers stated that they hired their taxi at a rank. • High levels of satisfaction with delay on last trip were recorded in Sefton; • The level of suppressed demand for hackney carriages is low. The majority of

respondents had not given up waiting for a taxi in the last three months with 14.7% stating they had given up trying to obtain a vehicle by rank and/or flagdown in Sefton;

• The majority of respondents felt safe using taxis during the day and night in Sefton.

9.5 Consultation - Trade 9.5.1 The key results from the Trade Survey can be summarised as follows:

• The majority of the hackney carriage respondents have been involved in the trade for over 10 years;

• Some 38.1% of hackney carriages carry disabled passengers between once and five times a week compared to 67% of private hire respondents

• Some 51.2% of hackney carriage respondents and 67.5% of private hire respondents stated that they felt unsafe some of the time whilst working in Sefton

• Some 83.7% of hackney carriage respondents stated that there was not sufficient rank space in Sefton, whilst 63.5% of private hire respondents said there was sufficient rank space

• Some 54.2% of hackney carriage respondents said training is insufficient, as did 56.2% of private hire respondents

• The majority of hackney carriage respondents (87.1%) thought the numerical limit on hackney licences should not be removed compared to 60.3% of private hire respondents


9.6 Conclusion 9.6.1 The 2009 study has identified that there is NO evidence of significant unmet demand for

hackney carriages in Sefton. This conclusion is based on an assessment of the implications of case law that has emerged since 2000, and the results of Halcrow’s analysis. However the DfT regards it as best practice NOT to impose quantity restrictions i.e. enforce a numerical limit.

9.6.2 On this basis the authority has discretion in its hackney licensing policy and may either:

• continue to limit the number of vehicles at 271; • issue any number of additional plates as it sees fit, either in one allocation or a

series of allocations; or • remove the limit on the number of vehicles and allow a free entry policy.


Arndale House Otley Road Headingley Leeds LS6 2UL

Tel +44 (0)113 220 8220 Fax +44 (0)113 274 2924

www.halcrow.com

Appendix 1

Sefton Hackney Carriage Rank Locations

Ainsdale

Rank Location Spaces Operating Hours

Shore Road 2 24 hour

Shore Road (Pontins) 3 24 hour Birkdale


Liverpool Road 2 20:00-00:00

Weld Parade 5 24 hour Bootle


Linacre Lane 8 24 hour

Merton Road 4 24 hour

Stanley Road 12 24 hour

Stanley Road (McDonalds) 7 24 hour

Stanley Road (Sullivans) 8 24 hour

Stanley Road (Wetherspoons) 7 24 hour

Stanley Road (South Park) 6 24 hour

Stanley Road (St Martin’s House) 8 24 hour

Washington Parade 8 24 hour

Washington Parade (New Strand

Shopping Centre)

5 24 hour

Crosby


Green Car Park Service Road 2 24 hour Formby


Green Lane, Formby 3 24 hour

Victoria Road 3 24 hour

Duke Street 4 24 hour



Tel +44 (0)113 220 8220 Fax +44 (0)113 274 2924

www.halcrow.com

Appendix 1 Litherland


Wellington Road 4 24 hour

Wellington Road (feeder) 4 24 hour Netherton


Bridle Road 8 24 hour

Glovers Lane 5 24 hour

Park Lane (Ormskirk Road) 7 24 hour

Park Lane (Warbreck Moor) 6 24 hour Southport


Botanic Road 2 24 hour

Coronation Walk (Promenade) 2 24 hour

Coronation Walk SW (Lord Street) 3 24 hour

Coronation Walk NE (Lord Street 2 24 hour

Curzon Road 3 24 hour

Derby Road (Central 12) 3 24 hour

Derby Road (Central 12) Feeder 2 24 hour

Derby Road (Central 12) 2 24 hour

Esplanade 4 24 hour

Garrick Parade 1 24 hour

Lord Street Service Road (Main) 4 08:00-18:00

Lord Street Service Road

(Woolworths)

5 24 hour

Lord Street / Hulme Street 8 24 hour

Lord Street / Hulme Street 4 18:00-06:00

Lord Street / Union Street 2 24 hour

North Road 2 24 hour

Park Road 4 24 hour

Promenade 2 24 hour

Southport and Formby District 3 24 hour



Tel +44 (0)113 220 8220 Fax +44 (0)113 274 2924

www.halcrow.com

Appendix 1

General Hospital (Feeder)

Southport and Formby District

General Hospital

1 24 hour

St Georges Place 8 24 hour

Thornton Road 2 24 hour

Tulketh Street 4 24 hour

West Street 2 24 hour Waterloo


South Road 2 24 hour

Appendix 2

Green Car Park, Crosby

Tuesday 04/05/2010 1000-1800

Hour Passengers CabsPassenger

QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 10 6 0 35 0.00 29.17 0 2 0 1 0

1100-1200 5 4 0 32 0.00 40.00 0 1 0 1 0

1200-1300 2 2 0 20 0.00 50.00 0 1 0 1 0

1300-1400 4 3 0 36 0.00 60.00 0 2 0 1 0

1400-1500 3 2 0 32 0.00 80.00 0 2 0 1 0

1500-1600 4 3 0 33 0.00 55.00 0 1 0 1 0

1600-1700 3 3 0 27 0.00 45.00 0 2 0 1 0

1700-1800 2 2 0 42 0.00 105.00 0 3 0 0 1

Total 33 25 0 257 0.00 51.40 0 7 1

Thursday 29/04/2010 1800-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 1 5 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 2 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 2 5 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 2 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 1 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 5 4 1 1 1.00 1.25 1 0 0 1 0

Total 13 19 1 1 0.38 0.26 0 6 0

Market ConditionsRank Throughput Queue 'Snap-Shot' Totals Service Quality Queue Extremes


Saturday 08/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 5 4 0 49 0.00 61.25 0 2 0 1 0

1100-1200 4 2 0 31 0.00 77.50 0 2 0 1 0

1200-1300 2 3 0 34 0.00 56.67 0 2 0 1 0

1300-1400 4 2 0 40 0.00 100.00 0 3 0 0 1

1400-1500 2 2 0 32 0.00 80.00 0 2 0 1 0

1500-1600 3 3 0 14 0.00 23.33 0 1 0 1 0

1600-1700 1 1 0 12 0.00 60.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 2 2 0 18 0.00 45.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 23 19 0 230 0.00 60.53 0 7 1

Saturday 01/05/2010 1800-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 9 7 8 1 4.44 0.71 4 0 1 0 0

1900-2000 1 5 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 1 6 4 0 20.00 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 9 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 4 16 4 0 5.00 0.00 2 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 7 17 8 1 5.71 0.29 2 0 0 1 0

Total 22 60 24 2 5.45 0.17 1 5 0

Sunday 09/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 0 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 3 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 3 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 3 7 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 4 0

Rank Throughput Queue 'Snap-Shot' Totals Service Quality Queue Extremes Market Conditions

Market Conditions


Rank Throughput Queue 'Snap-Shot' Totals Service Quality Queue Extremes

South Road, Waterloo

Thursday 28/04/2010 0800-1600


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

0800-0900 2 3 0 1 0.00 1.67 0 0 0 1 0

0900-1000 0 3 0 1 0.00 1.67 0 0 0 1 0

1000-1100 0 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 5 5 0 3 0.00 3.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 2 4 0 1 0.00 1.25 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 0 6 0 4 0.00 3.33 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 2 1 0 1 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 2 5 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 1 2 1 0 5.00 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

Total 14 31 1 11 0.36 1.77 0 10 0

Wednesday 05/05/2010 1800-2300


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 0 4 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 1 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 1 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 1 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 3 9 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 5 0

Market Conditions



Saturday 15/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 5 2 0 8 0.00 20.00 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 4 3 0 3 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 3 4 0 12 0.00 15.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 8 6 6 6 3.75 5.00 1 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 1 1 2 2 10.00 10.00 1 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 4 4 4 2 5.00 2.50 2 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 1 1 1 0 5.00 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 0 1 0 3 0.00 15.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 26 22 13 36 2.50 8.18 0 8 0

Friday 14/05/2010 1800-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 1 4 1 5 5.00 6.25 1 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 5 9 1 0 1.00 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 3 3 1 1 1.67 1.67 1 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 9 18 4 6 2.22 1.67 0 6 0

Sunday 16/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 1 3 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 2 0 7 0.00 17.50 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1 0 1 0

1700-1800 7 5 8 3 5.71 3.00 4 0 1 0 0

Total 8 11 8 10 5.00 4.55 1 3 0

Market Conditions




Duke Street, Formby

Wednesday 05/05/2010 0800-1600


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply0800-0900 3 4 2 2 3.33 2.50 2 0 0 1 0

0900-1000 3 4 1 0 1.67 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

1000-1100 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 2 5 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 3 4 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 3 4 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 8 7 3 3 1.88 2.14 1 0 0 1 0

Total 22 30 6 5 1.36 0.83 0 10 0

Wednesday 12/05/2010 1800-2300


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 2 2 2 0 5.00 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 2 3 0 1 0.00 1.67 0 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 1 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 5 6 2 1 2.00 0.83 0 5 0

Saturday 01/05/2010 1200-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1200-1300 5 3 0 43 0.00 71.67 0 3 0 0 1

1300-1400 2 3 0 53 0.00 88.33 0 3 0 0 1

1400-1500 6 4 0 32 0.00 40.00 0 2 0 1 0

1500-1600 3 2 0 42 0.00 105.00 0 3 0 0 1

1600-1700 3 2 0 46 0.00 115.00 0 3 0 0 1

1700-1800 3 2 0 70 0.00 175.00 0 5 0 0 1

Total 22 16 0 286 0.00 89.38 0 1 5


Rank Throughput Queue 'Snap-Shot' Totals Service Quality


Queue Extremes Market Conditions

Saturday 08/05/2010 1800-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 1 2 0 4 0.00 10.00 0 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 4 3 0 1 0.00 1.67 0 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 7 3 7 0 5.00 0.00 4 0 1 0 0

2200-2300 2 2 4 0 10.00 0.00 2 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 10 6 6 0 3.00 0.00 3 0 1 0 0

Total 24 16 17 5 3.54 1.56 2 4 0

Sunday 02/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 4 0

Green Lane, Formby

Thursday 13/05/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 4 0


Market Conditions



Saturday 08/05/2010 2100-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2100-2200 3 3 0 51 0.00 85.00 0 3 0 0 1

2200-2300 4 3 0 56 0.00 93.33 0 3 0 0 1

2300-0000 4 2 0 36 0.00 90.00 0 2 0 1 0

0000-0100 5 4 0 40 0.00 50.00 0 2 0 1 0

Total 16 12 0 183 0.00 76.25 0 2 2

Shore Roan, Ainsdale

Tuesday 04/05/2010 0800-1600


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

0800-0900 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0900-1000 0 1 0 9 0.00 45.00 0 0 0 1 0

1000-1100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 0 1 0 6 0.00 30.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 2 0 15 0.00 37.50 0 10 0

Thursday 06/05/2010 1800-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 6 0

Queue 'Snap-Shot' Totals Service Quality Queue Extremes Market ConditionsRank Throughput

Market Conditions



Saturday 01/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 0 0 0 4 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 0 1 0 4 0.00 20.00 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 0 0 0 4 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 1 1 0 5 0.00 25.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 0 0 0 8 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 1 1 0 2 0.00 10.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 2 3 0 27 0.00 45.00 0 8 0

Friday 30/04/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 4 0

Sunday 16/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 0 0 8 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 0 1 0 8 0.00 40.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 1 0 16 0.00 80.00 0 4 0

Market Conditions




Coronation Walk, Southport

Thursday 28/04/2010 1200-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1200-1300 4 6 0 43 0.00 57.00 0 1 0 0 1

1300-1400 1 3 0 54 0.00 60.00 0 2 0 1 0

1400-1500 6 5 0 57 0.00 78.33 0 3 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 2 0 24 0.00 50.00 0 1 0 1 0

1600-1700 6 3 0 47 0.00 57.61 0 2 0 1 0

1700-1800 6 4 0 40 0.00 50.00 0 2 0 1 0

Total 23 23 0 265 0.00 57.61 0 5 1

Thursday 13/05/2010 2000-0200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 2 0 1 0.00 2.50 0 0 0 1 0

0000-0100 0 2 0 3 0.00 7.50 0 0 0 1 0

0100-0200 0 4 0 1 0.00 1.25 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 8 0 5 0.00 3.13 0 6 0

Saturday 08/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 8 0


Service Quality Queue Extremes Market Conditions


Rank Throughput Queue 'Snap-Shot' Totals

Friday 07/05/2010 2000-0200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 4 6 0 39 0.00 32.50 0 1 0 1 0

2100-2200 6 4 0 39 0.00 48.75 0 2 0 1 0

2200-2300 6 5 0 59 0.00 59.00 0 3 0 0 1

2300-0000 6 6 0 31 0.00 25.83 0 1 0 1 0

0000-0100 12 8 0 36 0.00 22.50 0 2 0 1 0

0100-0200 9 5 0 44 0.00 44.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 43 34 0 248 0.00 36.47 0 5 1

Sunday 16/0/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 12 5 6 4 2.50 4.00 4 0 1 0 0

1500-1600 7 5 20 3 14.29 3.00 8 0 1 0 0

1600-1700 2 2 13 1 32.50 2.50 4 0 1 0 0

1700-1800 4 3 10 0 12.50 0.00 4 0 1 0 0

Total 25 15 49 8 9.80 2.67 4 0 0

West Street, Southport

Thursday 13/05/2010 2000-0200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 3 2 0 40 0.00 100.00 0 3 0 0 1

2100-2200 3 2 0 23 0.00 57.50 0 1 0 1 0

2200-2300 2 2 0 18 0.00 45.00 0 1 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 23 0.00 0.00 0 1 0 1 0

0000-0100 0 0 0 24 0.00 0.00 0 2 0 1 0

0100-0200 0 0 0 24 0.00 0.00 0 2 0 1 0

Total 8 6 0 152 0.00 126.67 0 5 1




Friday 07/05/2010 2000-0400


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0000-0100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0100-0200 0 2 0 2 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

0200-0300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0300-0400 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 2 0 2 0.00 5.00 0 8 0

Lord Street (Alliance and Leicester)

Monday 10/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 7 6 0 38 0.00 31.67 0 1 0 1 0

1100-1200 4 2 0 46 0.00 115.00 0 3 0 0 1

1200-1300 3 2 0 54 0.00 135.00 0 4 0 0 1

1300-1400 2 1 0 28 0.00 140.00 0 4 0 0 1

1400-1500 6 4 0 42 0.00 52.50 0 1 0 1 0

1500-1600 2 2 0 33 0.00 82.50 0 2 0 1 0

1600-1700 2 2 0 52 0.00 130.00 0 4 0 0 1

1700-1800 4 2 0 62 0.00 155.00 0 5 0 0 1

Total 30 21 0 355 0.00 84.52 0 3 5



Thursday 13/05/2010 2000-0300


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 7 4 0 11 0.00 13.75 3 0 1 0 0

2100-2200 5 2 0 25 0.00 62.50 0 1 0 1 0

2200-2300 3 3 0 12 0.00 20.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 4 2 0 18 0.00 45.00 0 1 0 1 0

0000-0100 2 2 0 17 0.00 45.00 0 1 0 1 0

0100-0200 1 2 0 24 0.00 42.50 0 1 0 1 0

0200-0300 3 2 0 23 0.00 60.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 25 17 0 130 0.00 38.24 1 6 0

Saturday 15/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 12 8 0 64 0.00 40.00 0 4 0 0 1

1100-1200 11 9 0 50 0.00 27.78 0 2 0 1 0

1200-1300 12 9 0 64 0.00 35.56 0 4 0 0 1

1300-1400 8 8 0 74 0.00 46.25 0 5 0 0 1

1400-1500 8 6 0 64 0.00 53.33 0 4 0 0 1

1500-1600 6 4 0 66 0.00 82.50 0 5 0 0 1

1600-1700 7 7 0 64 0.00 45.71 0 4 0 0 1

1700-1800 8 8 0 64 0.00 43.22 0 5 0 0 1

Total 72 59 0 510 0.00 43.22 0 1 7

Friday 14/05/2010 2000-0300


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 6 12 0 61 0.00 25.42 0 4 0 0 1

2100-2200 20 14 0 62 0.00 22.14 0 3 0 0 1

2200-2300 22 22 0 77 0.00 17.50 0 4 0 0 1

2300-0000 25 23 0 86 0.00 18.70 0 4 0 0 1

0000-0100 82 38 0 124 0.00 16.32 0 5 0 0 1

0100-0200 152 85 0 91 0.00 5.35 0 1 0 1 0

0200-0300 123 71 0 155 0.00 10.92 0 8 0 0 1

Total 430 265 0 656 0.00 12.38 0 1 6





Sunday 02/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 3 8 0 10 0.00 6.25 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 12 11 1 12 0.42 5.45 1 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 7 10 0 22 0.00 11.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 9 10 0 20 0.00 10.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 31 39 1 64 0.16 8.21 0 4 0

St Georges Place, Southport

Tuesday 11/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 5 3 0 64 0.00 106.67 0 5 0 0 1

1100-1200 3 3 0 39 0.00 65.00 0 3 0 0 1

1200-1300 2 2 0 42 0.00 105.00 0 3 0 0 1

1300-1400 3 3 0 32 0.00 53.33 0 1 0 1 0

1400-1500 1 1 0 40 0.00 200.00 0 3 0 0 1

1500-1600 3 2 0 22 0.00 55.00 0 1 0 1 0

1600-1700 4 2 0 36 0.00 90.00 0 2 0 1 0

1700-1800 2 1 0 42 0.00 210.00 0 3 0 0 1

Total 23 17 0 317 0.00 93.24 0 3 5

Thursday 20/05/2010 2000-0200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0000-0100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0100-0200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 6 0

Service Quality Queue Extremes Market ConditionsRank Throughput Queue 'Snap-Shot' Totals

Market Conditions



Saturday 15/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 28 25 0 46 0.00 9.20 0 2 0 1 0

1100-1200 19 19 1 61 0.26 16.05 1 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 10 28 0 98 0.00 17.50 0 8 0 0 1

1300-1400 20 26 0 84 0.00 16.15 0 4 0 0 1

1400-1500 31 41 0 65 0.00 7.93 0 3 0 0 1

1500-1600 48 30 0 78 0.00 13.00 0 3 0 0 1

1600-1700 39 32 0 49 0.00 7.66 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 39 30 0 67 0.00 11.17 0 3 0 0 1

Total 234 231 1 548 0.02 11.86 0 3 5

Saturday 08/05/2010 2000-0200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0000-0100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0100-0200 1 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 1 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 6 0

Sunday 02/05/2010 1200-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1200-1300 3 2 0 37 0.00 92.50 0 2 0 1 0

1300-1400 4 3 0 24 0.00 40.00 0 1 0 1 0

1400-1500 2 1 0 43 0.00 215.00 0 3 0 0 1

1500-1600 2 2 0 54 0.00 135.00 0 4 0 0 1

1600-1700 3 2 0 52 0.00 130.00 0 4 0 0 1

1700-1800 3 2 0 41 0.00 102.50 0 3 0 0 1

Total 17 12 0 251 0.00 104.58 0 2 4




Lord Street (Casino)

Tuesday 11/05/2010 2100-0200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 2 2 1 4 2.50 10.00 1 0 0 1 0

0000-0100 0 1 0 1 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

0100-0200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0200-0300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 2 3 1 5 2.50 8.33 0 5 0

Saturday 01/05/2010 2100-0400


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 1 0 1 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0000-0100 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0100-0200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0200-0300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0300-0400 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 3 0 1 0.00 1.67 0 7 0



Train Station, Southport

Thursday 28/04/2010 0800-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

0800-0900 4 20 0 12 0.00 3.00 0 0 0 1 0

0900-1000 14 27 0 48 0.00 8.89 0 2 0 1 0

1000-1100 24 36 0 38 0.00 5.28 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 25 33 0 54 0.00 8.18 0 2 0 1 0

1200-1300 34 41 0 57 0.00 6.95 0 3 0 0 1

1300-1400 30 26 0 56 0.00 10.77 0 3 0 0 1

1400-1500 22 30 0 57 0.00 9.50 0 4 0 0 1

1500-1600 44 44 1 30 0.11 3.41 1 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 16 13 0 34 0.00 13.08 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 24 14 0 70 0.00 25.00 0 4 0 0 1

Total 237 284 1 456 0.02 8.03 0 6 4

Thursday 29/04/2010 1800-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 16 8 18 16 5.63 10.00 3 0 1 0 0

1900-2000 8 5 3 39 1.88 39.00 3 0 1 0 0

2000-2100 5 5 0 43 0.00 43.00 0 3 0 0 1

2100-2200 12 10 0 36 0.00 18.00 0 1 0 1 0

2200-2300 4 5 0 41 0.00 41.00 0 1 0 1 0

2300-0000 3 6 0 43 0.00 35.83 0 2 0 1 0

Total 48 39 21 218 2.19 27.95 2 3 1




Saturday 22/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 4 3 0 16 0.00 26.67 0 1 0 1 0

1100-1200 3 2 0 35 0.00 87.50 0 2 0 1 0

1200-1300 3 2 0 35 0.00 87.50 0 2 0 1 0

1300-1400 8 4 0 18 0.00 22.50 0 1 0 1 0

1400-1500 3 3 0 19 0.00 31.67 0 1 0 1 0

1500-1600 2 2 3 7 7.50 17.50 2 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 3 2 0 24 0.00 60.00 0 1 0 1 0

1700-1800 6 4 0 20 0.00 25.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 32 22 3 174 0.47 39.55 0 8 0

Saturday 15/05/2010 1800-0100


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 16 13 0 33 0.00 12.69 0 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 11 7 0 43 0.00 30.71 0 1 0 1 0

2000-2100 4 2 0 21 0.00 52.50 0 1 0 1 0

2100-2200 2 2 0 16 0.00 40.00 0 1 0 1 0

2200-2300 9 4 0 20 0.00 25.00 0 1 0 1 0

2300-0000 3 3 0 27 0.00 45.00 0 1 0 1 0

0000-0100 4 2 0 38 0.00 95.00 0 2 0 1 0

Total 49 33 0 198 0.00 30.00 0 7 0



Sunday 09/05/2010 1200-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1200-1300 9 23 0 42 0.00 9.13 0 1 0 1 0

1300-1400 23 27 0 47 0.00 8.70 0 1 0 1 0

1400-1500 41 42 4 20 0.49 2.38 2 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 10 26 0 40 0.00 7.69 0 2 0 1 0

1600-1700 31 27 0 35 0.00 6.48 0 1 0 1 0

1700-1800 30 27 2 24 0.33 4.44 1 0 0 1 0

Total 144 172 6 208 0.21 6.05 0 6 0

Derby Road, Central

Thurday 29/04/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply1000-1100 20 27 3 14 0.75 2.59 1 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 12 22 0 16 0.00 3.64 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 30 30 0 24 0.00 4.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 14 25 9 20 3.21 4.00 3 0 1 0 0

1400-1500 17 19 0 20 0.00 5.26 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 34 30 18 4 2.65 0.67 3 0 1 0 0

1600-1700 38 27 18 0 2.37 0.00 3 0 1 0 0

1700-1800 37 25 6 1 0.81 0.20 2 0 0 1 0

Total 202 205 54 99 1.34 2.41 3 5 0

Wednesday 12/05/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply2000-2100 4 2 0 26 0.00 65.00 0 1 0 1 0

2100-2200 1 1 0 25 0.00 125.00 0 1 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 29 0.00 0.00 0 2 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 1 0 26 0.00 130.00 0 2 0 1 0

Total 5 4 0 106 0.00 132.50 0 4 0


Market Conditions



Saturday 01/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply1000-1100 8 13 5 1 3.13 0.38 2 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 19 16 6 5 1.58 1.56 2 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 28 20 18 0 3.21 0.00 3 0 1 0 0

1300-1400 28 22 9 0 1.61 0.00 2 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 30 22 11 3 1.83 0.68 3 0 1 0 0

1500-1600 52 28 16 2 1.54 0.36 3 0 1 0 0

1600-1700 46 28 24 6 2.61 1.07 4 0 1 0 0

1700-1800 48 30 12 1 1.25 0.17 4 0 1 0 0

Total 259 179 101 18 1.95 0.50 5 3 0

Friday 30/04/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply2000-2100 7 7 5 0 3.57 0.00 2 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 20 18 12 0 3.00 0.00 3 0 1 0 0

2200-2300 21 14 7 0 1.67 0.00 2 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 8 8 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 56 47 24 0 2.14 0.00 1 3 0

Sunday 16/05/2010 1200-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply1200-1300 6 8 7 0 5.83 0.00 2 1 0 1 0

1300-1400 14 10 5 1 1.79 0.50 1 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 7 7 6 0 4.29 0.00 3 0 1 0 0

1500-1600 28 22 10 4 1.79 0.91 2 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 23 17 12 0 2.61 0.00 2 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 1 1 1 0 5.00 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

Total 79 65 41 5 2.59 0.38 1 5 0




Southport Hospital

Tuesday 04/05/2010 1300-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1300-1400 4 4 0 24 0.00 30.00 0 1 0 1 0

1400-1500 4 3 0 15 0.00 25.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 3 3 8 0 13.33 0.00 2 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 4 5 2 3 2.50 3.00 1 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 7 11 7 1 5.00 0.45 2 0 0 1 0

Total 22 26 17 43 3.86 8.27 0 5 0

Tuesday 11/05/2010 1800-2100


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply1800-1900 4 8 0 3 0.00 1.88 0 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 4 2 1 0 1.25 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 8 10 2 1 1.25 0.50 1 0 0 1 0

Total 16 20 3 4 0.94 1.00 0 3 0

Saturday 22/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply1400-1500 10 8 0 54 0.00 33.75 0 4 0 0 1

1500-1600 13 9 0 55 0.00 30.56 0 3 0 0 1

1600-1700 12 10 0 53 0.00 26.50 0 1 0 1 0

1700-1800 10 7 0 37 0.00 26.43 0 1 0 1 0

Total 45 34 0 199 0.00 29.26 0 2 2

Friday 07/05/2010 1700-2100


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 2 9 1 0 2.50 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 8 6 3 0 1.88 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 7 7 2 0 1.43 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

Total 17 22 6 0 1.76 0.00 0 3 0


Market Conditions




Sunday 23/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 3 8 1 0 1.67 0.00 1 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 3 7 2 0 3.33 0.00 2 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 7 5 3 0 2.14 0.00 2 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 5 4 1 1 1.00 1.25 1 0 0 1 0

Total 18 24 7 1 1.94 0.21 0 4 0

Wellington Road, Litherland

Wedensday 05/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 1 7 0 23 0.00 16.43 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 0 4 0 9 0.00 11.25 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 0 4 0 10 0.00 12.50 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 0 1 0 2 0.00 10.00 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 0 8 0 8 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 3 1 1 9 1.67 45.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 3 8 0 14 0.00 8.75 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 2 5 0 34 0.00 34.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 9 38 1 109 0.56 14.34 0 8 0

Thursday 20/05/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 3 2 0 29 0.00 72.50 0 2 0 1 0

2100-2200 1 1 0 31 0.00 155.00 0 2 0 1 0

2200-2300 1 2 0 36 0.00 90.00 0 2 0 1 0

2300-0000 2 1 0 42 0.00 210.00 0 3 0 0 1

Total 7 6 0 138 0.00 115.00 0 3 1

Market Conditions




Saturday 22/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 3 12 0 21 0.00 8.75 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 3 7 0 9 0.00 6.43 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 4 8 0 8 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 4 13 0 5 0.00 1.92 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 7 10 0 4 0.00 2.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 12 18 0 10 0.00 2.78 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 3 10 0 6 0.00 3.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 2 6 0 8 0.00 6.67 0 0 0 1 0

Total 38 84 0 71 0.00 4.23 0 8 0

Saturday 15/05/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 1 0 2 0.00 10.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 1 0 1 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 3 0 3 0.00 5.00 0 4 0

Sunday 09/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 0 1 0 9 0.00 45.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 4 2 0 14 0.00 35.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 0 3 0 4 0.00 6.67 0 0 0 1 0

Total 4 6 0 27 0.00 22.50 0 4 0

Market Conditions




Glovers Lane, Netherton

Thursday 29/04/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 12 14 0 14 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 11 11 0 36 0.00 16.36 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 6 10 0 54 0.00 27.00 0 4 0 0 1

1300-1400 8 10 0 38 0.00 19.00 0 2 0 1 0

1400-1500 6 10 0 45 0.00 22.50 0 2 0 1 0

1500-1600 29 16 1 23 0.17 7.19 1 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 18 12 0 4 0.00 1.67 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 1 3 0 6 0.00 10.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 91 86 1 220 0.05 12.79 0 7 1

Tursday 20/05/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 1 1 0 28 0.00 140.00 0 2 0 1 0

2100-2200 1 1 0 20 0.00 100.00 0 1 0 1 0

2200-2300 1 1 0 32 0.00 160.00 0 2 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 24 0.00 0.00 0 2 0 1 0

Total 3 3 0 104 0.00 173.33 0 4 0

Saturday 01/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 3 3 0 15 0.00 25.00 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 6 9 0 35 0.00 19.44 0 1 0 1 0

1200-1300 6 9 0 37 0.00 20.56 0 1 0 1 0

1300-1400 11 9 0 17 0.00 9.44 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 6 4 2 2 1.67 2.50 1 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 9 9 0 28 0.00 15.56 0 1 0 1 0

1600-1700 2 8 0 32 0.00 7.86 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 5 7 0 11 0.21 15.26 0 0 0 1 0

Total 48 58 2 177 0.21 15.26 0 8 0




Friday 07/05/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 0 0 27 0.00 0.00 0 2 0 1 0

2100-2200 1 1 0 26 0.00 130.00 0 2 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 1 0 16 0.00 80.00 0 1 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 12 0.00 0.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 1 2 0 81 0.00 202.50 0 4 0

Sunday 23/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 2 2 0 42 0.00 105.00 0 3 0 0 1

1500-1600 4 3 0 25 0.00 41.67 0 1 0 1 0

1600-1700 3 2 0 27 0.00 67.50 0 2 0 1 0

1700-1800 1 1 0 32 0.00 160.00 0 2 0 1 0

Total 10 8 0 126 0.00 78.75 0 3 1

Washington Parade, Bootle

Monday 10/05/2010 0800-1600


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

0800-0900 0 0 0 20 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0900-1000 25 16 0 46 0.00 14.38 0 0 0 1 0

1000-1100 35 21 0 141 0.00 33.57 0 8 0 0 1

1100-1200 70 47 0 151 0.00 16.06 0 8 0 0 1

1200-1300 46 35 0 172 0.00 24.57 0 12 0 0 1

1300-1400 66 45 0 147 0.00 16.33 0 5 0 0 1

1400-1500 59 39 0 173 0.00 22.18 0 10 0 0 1

1500-1600 52 36 0 157 0.00 21.81 0 9 0 0 1

1600-1700 22 17 0 29 0.00 8.53 0 1 0 1 0

1700-1800 33 22 0 12 0.00 2.73 0 0 0 1 0

Total 408 278 0 1048 0.00 18.85 0 4 6


Market Conditions



Thursday 29/04/2010 1800-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 0 2 0 4 0.00 10.00 0 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 0 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 4 0 4 0.00 5.00 0 6 0

Saturday 08/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 37 26 0 38 0.00 7.31 0 1 0 1 0

1100-1200 78 48 0 34 0.00 3.54 0 1 0 1 0

1200-1300 61 41 0 34 0.00 4.15 0 1 0 1 0

1300-1400 65 41 0 38 0.00 4.63 0 2 0 1 0

1400-1500 82 50 0 36 0.00 3.60 0 1 0 1 0

1500-1600 78 52 0 37 0.00 3.56 0 2 0 1 0

1600-1700 72 46 0 36 0.00 3.91 0 3 0 0 1

1700-1800 31 23 0 26 0.00 5.65 0 1 0 1 0

Total 504 327 0 279 0.00 4.27 0 7 1

Friday 07/05/2010 1800-0200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1900-2000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0000-0100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0100-0200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 8 0

Market Conditions




Sunday 16/05/2010 1200-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1200-1300 16 11 0 10 0.00 4.55 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 19 13 2 10 0.53 3.85 2 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 9 5 0 8 0.00 8.00 0 1 0 1 0

1500-1600 33 19 0 13 0.00 3.42 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 2 3 0 19 0.00 31.67 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 0 3 0 12 0.00 20.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 79 54 2 72 0.13 6.67 0 6 0

Stanley Road, Bootle (M&S)

Tuesday 11/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 29 21 0 108 0.00 25.71 0 6 0 0 1

1100-1200 39 30 0 115 0.00 19.17 0 9 0 0 1

1200-1300 38 29 0 95 0.00 16.38 0 6 0 0 1

1300-1400 24 19 0 99 0.00 26.05 0 5 0 0 1

1400-1500 30 21 0 108 0.00 25.71 0 8 0 0 1

1500-1600 41 27 0 98 0.00 18.15 0 4 0 0 1

1600-1700 36 24 0 102 0.00 21.25 0 7 0 0 1

1700-1800 17 14 0 31 0.00 11.07 0 1 0 1 0

Total 254 185 0 756 0.00 20.43 0 1 7

Saturday 08/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 21 16 0 91 0.00 28.44 0 4 0 0 1

1100-1200 24 17 0 111 0.00 32.65 0 7 0 0 1

1200-1300 53 27 2 80 0.19 14.81 2 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 48 26 0 94 0.00 18.08 0 4 0 0 1

1400-1500 44 32 0 97 0.00 15.16 0 4 0 0 1

1500-1600 34 24 0 118 0.00 24.58 0 8 0 0 1

1600-1700 37 27 0 86 0.00 15.93 0 2 0 1 0

1700-1800 19 17 0 39 0.00 11.47 0 1 0 1 0


Market Conditions



Total 280 186 2 716 0.04 19.25 0 3 5

Sunday 09/05/2010 1200-1600


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1200-1300 6 6 0 26 0.00 21.67 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 7 6 0 29 0.00 24.17 0 1 0 1 0

1400-1500 10 9 0 10 0.00 5.56 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 4 6 0 4 0.00 3.33 0 0 0 1 0

Total 27 27 0 69 0.00 12.78 0 4 0

Stanley Road, Bootle (McDonalds)

Thursday 28/04/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 9 10 0 112 0.00 56.00 0 8 0 0 1

1100-1200 7 14 0 104 0.00 37.14 0 6 0 0 1

1200-1300 24 19 0 110 0.00 28.95 0 8 0 0 1

1300-1400 24 18 18 116 3.75 32.22 0 7 0 0 1

1400-1500 34 22 0 108 0.00 24.55 0 6 0 0 1

1500-1600 29 22 0 77 0.00 17.50 0 5 0 0 1

1600-1700 20 17 0 71 0.00 20.88 0 2 0 1 0

1700-1800 12 12 0 59 0.00 24.58 0 2 0 1 0

Total 159 134 18 757 0.57 28.25 0 2 6

Saturday 22/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1100-1200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1200-1300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 1 0 3 0.00 15.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 1 2 0 2 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0


Market Conditions



Market Conditions

Total 1 4 0 5 0.00 6.25 0 8 0

Sunday 23/05/2010 1200-1600


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1200-1300 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 0 1 0 4 0.00 20.00 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 0 1 0 1 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 0 2 0 5 0.00 12.50 0 4 0

Stanley Road, Bootle (Wetherspoons)

Friday 21/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 28 22 0 60 0.00 13.64 0 3 0 0 1

1100-1200 30 21 0 71 0.00 16.90 0 4 0 0 1

1200-1300 45 29 0 70 0.00 12.07 0 4 0 0 1

1300-1400 30 22 0 76 0.00 17.27 0 6 0 0 1

1400-1500 41 31 0 39 0.00 6.29 0 0 0 1 0

1500-1600 32 24 0 58 0.00 12.08 0 4 0 0 1

1600-1700 49 35 0 69 0.00 9.86 0 2 0 1 0

1700-1800 22 12 0 77 0.00 32.08 0 5 0 0 1

Total 277 196 0 520 0.00 13.27 0 2 6

Thursday 06/05/2010 2000-0200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 13 14 0 78 0.00 27.86 0 5 0 0 1

2100-2200 4 4 0 83 0.00 103.75 0 5 0 0 1

2200-2300 13 11 0 59 0.00 26.82 0 2 0 1 0

2300-0000 7 9 0 41 0.00 22.78 0 3 0 0 1

0000-0100 7 6 0 39 0.00 32.50 0 2 0 1 0

0100-0200 6 6 0 32 0.00 26.67 0 1 0 1 0

Total 50 50 0 332 0.00 33.20 0 3 3


Market Conditions



Saturday 08/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 50 31 0 74 0.00 11.94 0 4 0 0 1

1100-1200 48 32 0 73 0.00 11.41 0 3 0 0 1

1200-1300 40 28 0 63 0.00 11.25 0 3 0 0 1

1300-1400 46 27 0 69 0.00 12.78 0 3 0 0 1

1400-1500 34 20 0 68 0.00 17.00 0 3 0 0 1

1500-1600 40 23 0 65 0.00 14.13 0 3 0 0 1

1600-1700 22 18 0 84 0.00 23.33 0 5 0 0 1

1700-1800 40 24 0 72 0.00 15.00 0 4 0 0 1

Total 320 203 0 568 0.00 13.99 0 0 8

Saturday 01/05/2010 2000-0200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 13 11 0 50 0.00 22.73 0 3 0 0 1

2100-2200 23 16 0 65 0.00 20.31 0 2 0 1 0

2200-2300 52 24 0 82 0.00 17.08 0 6 0 0 1

2300-0000 24 16 0 75 0.00 23.44 0 5 0 0 1

0000-0100 22 16 0 49 0.00 15.31 0 3 0 0 1

0100-0200 8 13 0 43 0.00 16.54 0 2 0 1 0

Total 142 96 0 364 0.00 18.96 0 2 4

Sunday 16/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 13 10 0 53 0.00 26.50 0 1 0 1 0

1500-1600 30 15 0 43 0.00 14.33 0 1 0 1 0

1600-1700 39 19 0 55 0.00 14.47 0 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 26 15 0 35 0.00 11.67 0 1 0 1 0

Total 108 59 0 186 0.00 15.76 0 4 0

Market Conditions




Stanley Road, Bootle (Sulivans)

Thursday 13/05/2010 2000-0100


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 2 0 10 0.00 25.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 1 2 0 10 0.00 25.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 1 2 0 3 0.00 7.50 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 1 3 0 9 0.00 15.00 0 0 0 1 0

0000-0100 1 1 0 5 0.00 25.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 4 10 0 37 0.00 18.50 0 5 0

Saturday 15/05/2010 2000-0100


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 5 8 0 21 0.00 13.13 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 1 0 3 0.00 15.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

0000-0100 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 5 9 0 24 0.00 13.33 0 5 0

Tulketh Street, Southport

Monday 07/06/2010 1000-1600


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 3 2 0 34 0.00 85.00 0 2 0 1 0

1100-1200 6 3 0 21 0.00 35.00 0 1 0 1 0

1200-1300 3 2 0 12 0.00 30.00 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 3 2 0 19 0.00 47.50 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 4 4 0 26 0.00 32.50 0 1 0 1 0

1500-1600 3 2 0 26 0.00 65.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 22 15 0 138 0.00 46.00 0 6 0


Market Conditions



Wednesday 09/06/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 7 4 0 3 0.00 3.75 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 3 2 0 11 0.00 27.50 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 2 1 2 8 5.00 40.00 2 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 1 1 0 15 0.00 75.00 0 0 0 1 0

Total 13 8 2 37 0.77 23.13 0 4 0

Saturday 12/06/2010 1200-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1200-1300 3 2 0 34 0.00 85.00 0 2 0 1 0

1300-1400 6 3 0 17 0.00 28.33 0 0 0 1 0

1400-1500 1 1 0 26 0.00 130.00 0 2 0 1 0

1500-1600 2 2 0 30 0.00 75.00 0 2 0 1 0

1600-1700 4 2 0 15 0.00 37.50 0 1 0 1 0

1700-1800 1 1 0 17 0.00 85.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 17 11 0 139 0.00 63.18 0 6 0

Friday 11/06/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 3 2 0 33 0.00 82.50 0 2 0 1 0

2100-2200 4 2 0 20 0.00 50.00 0 1 0 1 0

2200-2300 3 2 0 16 0.00 40.00 0 1 0 1 0

2300-0000 3 2 0 24 0.00 60.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 13 8 0 93 0.00 58.13 0 4 0

Market Conditions




Sunday 13/06/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 3 3 0 25 0.00 41.67 0 1 0 1 0

1500-1600 4 2 0 17 0.00 42.50 0 1 0 1 0

1600-1700 2 1 0 26 0.00 130.00 0 1 0 1 0

1700-1800 3 2 0 20 0.00 50.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 12 8 0 88 0.00 55.00 0 4 0

Bridal Road, Netherton

Tuesday 08/06/2010 1000-1600


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 4 3 0 48 0.00 80.00 0 3 0 0 1

1100-1200 4 4 0 27 0.00 33.75 0 1 0 1 0

1200-1300 4 3 0 29 0.00 48.33 0 2 0 1 0

1300-1400 3 3 0 31 0.00 51.67 0 2 0 1 0

1400-1500 5 4 0 29 0.00 36.25 0 2 0 1 0

1500-1600 2 2 0 8 0.00 20.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 22 19 0 172 0.00 45.26 0 5 1

Thursday 10/06/2010 1800-2200


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1800-1900 2 3 0 26 0.00 43.33 0 1 0 1 0

1900-2000 2 2 0 20 0.00 50.00 0 1 0 1 0

2000-2100 3 2 0 17 0.00 42.50 0 1 0 1 0

2100-2200 2 2 0 20 0.00 50.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 9 9 0 83 0.00 46.11 0 4 0


Market Conditions



Saturday 12/06/2010 1200-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1200-1300 9 7 0 63 0.00 45.00 0 4 0 0 1

1300-1400 7 6 0 59 0.00 49.17 0 4 0 0 1

1400-1500 7 5 0 63 0.00 63.00 0 4 0 0 1

1500-1600 4 5 0 57 0.00 57.00 0 4 0 0 1

1600-1700 2 2 0 44 0.00 110.00 0 3 0 0 1

1700-1800 4 3 0 35 0.00 58.33 0 2 0 1 0

Total 33 28 0 321 0.00 57.32 0 1 5

Friday 11/06/2010 2000-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

2000-2100 2 2 0 26 0.00 65.00 0 1 0 1 0

2100-2200 1 1 0 20 0.00 100.00 0 1 0 1 0

2200-2300 1 1 0 19 0.00 95.00 0 1 0 1 0

2300-0000 1 1 0 17 0.00 85.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 5 5 0 82 0.00 82.00 0 4 0

Sunday 13/06/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 4 3 0 31 0.00 51.67 0 2 0 1 0

1500-1600 4 4 0 14 0.00 17.50 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 2 2 0 19 0.00 47.50 0 1 0 1 0

1700-1800 3 3 0 24 0.00 40.00 0 1 0 1 0

Total 13 12 0 88 0.00 36.67 0 4 0

Market Conditions




Weld Parade, Birkdale

Wednesday 05/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 7 4 0 49 0.00 61.25 0 3 0 0 1

1100-1200 4 2 0 50 0.00 125.00 0 4 0 0 1

1200-1300 16 6 12 32 3.75 26.67 0 2 0 1 0

1300-1400 6 3 0 42 0.00 70.00 0 3 0 0 1

1400-1500 6 3 0 43 0.00 71.67 0 3 0 0 1

1500-1600 6 4 2 22 1.67 27.50 1 1 0 1 0

1600-1700 5 5 2 13 2.00 13.00 1 0 0 1 0

1700-1800 7 3 0 44 0.00 73.33 0 2 0 1 0

Total 57 30 16 295 1.40 49.17 0 4 4

Thursday 06/05/2010 1900-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1900-2000 0 0 0 41 0.00 0.00 0 3 0 0 1

2000-2100 1 2 0 33 0.00 82.50 0 2 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 0 0 34 0.00 0.00 0 2 0 1 0

2200-2300 0 1 0 25 0.00 125.00 0 2 0 1 0

2300-0000 0 2 0 15 0.00 37.50 0 0 0 1 0

Total 1 5 0 148 0.00 148.00 0 4 1

Saturday 08/05/2010 1000-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1000-1100 3 2 0 45 0.00 112.50 0 3 0 0 1

1100-1200 9 5 10 15 5.56 15.00 4 0 1 0 0

1200-1300 8 4 0 18 0.00 22.50 0 0 0 1 0

1300-1400 2 2 0 48 0.00 120.00 0 3 0 0 1

1400-1500 7 4 0 44 0.00 55.00 0 3 0 0 1

1500-1600 3 2 0 46 0.00 115.00 0 3 0 0 1

1600-1700 2 6 0 32 0.00 26.67 0 1 0 1 0

1700-1800 3 2 0 34 0.00 85.00 0 2 0 1 0

Total 37 27 10 282 1.35 52.22 1 3 4


Market Conditions



Friday 30/04/2010 1900-0000


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1900-2000 0 1 0 3 0.00 15.00 0 0 0 1 0

2000-2100 2 3 0 4 0.00 6.67 0 0 0 1 0

2100-2200 0 1 0 1 0.00 5.00 0 0 0 1 0

2200-2300 1 3 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0

2300-0000 1 2 0 5 0.00 12.50 0 0 0 1 0

Total 4 10 0 13 0.00 6.50 0 5 0

Sunday 09/05/2010 1400-1800


QueueCab Queue

Average

Passenger

Delay

Average

Cab Delay

Maximum

Passenger

Queue

Minimum

Cab Queue

Excess

DemandEquilibrium

Excess

Supply

1400-1500 3 3 0 20 0.00 33.33 0 1 0 1 0

1500-1600 2 2 0 14 0.00 35.00 0 0 0 1 0

1600-1700 3 2 0 30 0.00 75.00 0 2 0 1 0

1700-1800 2 2 0 27 0.00 67.50 0 1 0 1 0

Total 10 9 0 91 0.00 50.56 0 4 0

Market Conditions





Tel +44 (0)113 220 8220 Fax +44 (0)113 274 2924

www.halcrow.com

Appendix 3

Project Sefton Unmet Demand Taxi Study Date 28th July 2010

Note Public Attitude Survey Results Ref CTDAMS003

Author Nikki Callaghan

1 Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this Technical Note is to present the results of a public attitude survey undertaken

by Halcrow on behalf of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

1.2 A public attitude interview survey was designed with the aim of collecting information regarding

opinions on the taxi market in the Sefton borough. In particular, the survey allowed an

assessment of flagdown, telephone and rank delays, the satisfaction with delays, and general use

information.

1.3 It should be noted that in the tables that follow the totals do not always add up to the same

amount. This is due to one of two reasons. First, not all respondents were required to answer all

questions; and second, some respondents failed to answer some questions that were asked.

2 Survey Administration and Sample Selection

2.1 Some 1,086 interviews were carried out in June and July 2010. The age and gender samples are

given in Table 1 below. The sample of 1,086 interviews provides a robust basis for assessment.

2.2 The age and gender samples are shown in Table 1 along with the actual turn-out figures.

Table 1 - Target and Actual Samples for Interview Surveys by Age and Gender

Target Quota Actual Quota Category

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

16–34 320 27.8 342 31.6

35-64 564 49.0 486 45.0

65+ 266 23.1 253 23.4

Total 1150 100.0 1081 100.0

Male 532 46.3 492 45.8

Female 618 53.7 582 54.2

Total 1150 100.0 1074 100.0

Appendix 3 Page 2

Sefton Unmet Demand Taxi Study Public Attitude Survey Results

2.3 As can be seen in Table 1, the survey provides a slight under representation of the 35-64 and

65+ age categories.

2.4 The respondents were asked to give their economic circumstances. The results are displayed in

Table 2 below.

Table 2 - Economic Circumstances

Frequency Percent

Full-time Employed 353 32.9

Part-time Employed 115 10.7

Unemployed 116 10.8

Student/Pupil 99 9.2

Retired 306 28.5

Housewife/Husband 40 3.7

Other 44 4.1

Total 1073 100.0

2.5 Respondents were asked to specify their residency. The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 - Residency

Frequency Percent

Permanent Resident 823 79.7

Visitor 167 16.2

Tourist 17 1.6

University Student 26 2.5

Total 1033 100.0

3 Taxi Awareness

3.1 Respondents were asked whether the following statement is true or false “All taxis are

allowed to pick up in the street or at a rank.” The majority of respondents commented that

this statement was false (70%). Those who answered ‘false’ were then asked the name given

to taxis which are allowed to pick up in the street or at ranks. The majority of respondents

(59%) were correct in stating that it is called a hackney carriage.

Appendix 3 Page 3


4 Characteristics of Last Trip by Taxi

4.1 Respondents were each asked if they had made a journey by taxi in Sefton within the last three

months. The survey found that 61.6% had used a taxi within this period. The results are displayed

in Table 4.

Table 4 - Have you made a trip by taxi in the past three months?

Trip Type Frequency Percent

Yes 664 61.6

No 414 38.4

Total 1078 100.0

4.2 Respondents who had hired a taxi in the last three months were asked further questions about

their experience. Some 16.5% of tripmakers stated that they hired their taxi at a rank. Over half of

hirings were achieved by telephone (73%) and 10.5% of trips were obtained by on-street

flagdown. Table 5 reveals the pattern of taxi hire.

Table 5 - Method of Taxi Hire for Last Trip

Trip Type Frequency Percent

Rank 109 16.5

Flagdown 69 10.5

Telephone 481 73.0

Total 659 100.0

4.3 Respondents were asked what type of vehicle they hired. The most common type of vehicle used

was a saloon car (76.5%) with 20.9% hiring a purpose built cab.

Table 6 - Vehicle type for last trip

Vehicle Type Frequency Percent

Purpose built cab 134 20.9

Saloon car 491 76.5

Other 17 2.6

Total 642 100.0

4.4 If respondents obtained their vehicle by telephone, they were asked which company they used.

The most common answer was Delta.

Appendix 3 Page 4


4.5 The majority of vehicles obtained were in the day time (before 6pm). A breakdown of hire by time

of day is included in Table 7.

Table 7 – Time of hire

Time Frequency Percent

Day (before 6pm) 326 49.5

Evening (6pm-10pm) 198 30.0

Night (after 10pm) 136 20.6

4.6 Respondents were asked if they were satisfied with the time taken and the promptness of the

taxis arrival. Table 8 shows that the majority were satisfied with the service.

Table 8 - Satisfaction with delay on last trip

Satisfaction Frequency Percent

Yes 628 96.0

No 26 4.0

Total 654 100.0

4.7 When looking at whether the time of day affected whether or not participants could have used

another mode, it can be seen that a greater proportion of respondents had alternatives

available to them during the day than at night. However, at all times of the day and night,

more people had alternatives available to them than not. Table 11 details the results.

Table 9 – Journey by another mode by time of day

Day (before 6pm) Evening (6pm-10pm) Night (after 10pm) Journey

Freq % Freq % Freq %

Yes 210 65.2 134 68.7 67 51.5

No 112 34.8 61 31.3 63 48.5

Total 322 100.0 195 100.0 130 100.0

4.8 Table 10 shows which modes were available for participants at each time of the day. It is

evident that the bus became less of an alternative after 10pm, as does cycling and using the

car.

Appendix 3 Page 5


Table 10 – Mode available at time of day

Vehicle Type Day (before 6pm) % Evening (6pm-10pm) % Night (after 10pm) %

Bus 51.9 50.0 16.9

Car 9.5 11.2 7.7

Train 4.8 7.5 7.7

Walk 32.4 29.8 67.7

Cycle 1.4 1.5 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

4.9 Table 11 shows participants reasons for using taxis during each time period.

Table 11 – Reasons for using taxis

Vehicle Type Day (before 6pm) % Evening (6pm-10pm) % Night (after 10pm) %

Convenience 28.8 50.7 39.4

Cost 1.4 0.0 1.5

Prefer to use taxi/private hire 1.4 1.5 4.5

Alternatives unavailable 2.9 3.0 1.5

Distance 1.0 1.5 4.5

Carrying Shopping/luggage 17.3 5.2 0.0

Other 47.1 38.1 48.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

5 Attempted Method of Hire

5.1 To provide evidence of suppressed demand in the event of a finding of significant patent unmet

demand, respondents were asked to identify whether or not they had given up waiting for a taxi at

a rank, on the street, or by telephone in Sefton borough in the last three months. The results are

summarised in Table 12.

Appendix 3 Page 6


Table 12 - Given up attempting to hire a taxi by method of hire in the last three months

Yes

Frequency Percent

Given up at a rank 102 9.5

Given up flagdown 101 9.4

Given up telephone 142 13.2

Given up rank/flag 158 14.7

5.2 Some 9.5% had given up waiting for a taxi at a rank, 9.4% having given up via flagdown and

13.2% via telephone. 14.7% had given up at a rank and/or a flagdown.

5.3 The respondents were asked which areas they were waiting in the last time that they gave up in Sefton borough. The majority of respondents stated:

• Southport;

• Bootle;

• Crosby;

• Formby;

• Litherland; and

• Brikdale

5.4 Respondents were asked for the main reason they do not use taxis more often in Sefton. The

results in Table 13 indicate that the most common reason is that they have a car available.

Those that stated other commented that they use taxis regularly.

Table 13 –Reasons do not use taxis more often

Vehicle Type Frequency Percent

Too expensive 256 23.8

Car available 290 27.0

Walk/cycle 102 9.5

Waiting time availability 12 1.1

Bus availability 171 15.9

No need 102 9.5

Distance to ranks 4 0.4

Lack of disabled access vehicles 0 0.0

Prefer/use private hire 8 0.7

Other 130 12.1

Total 1075 100.0

Appendix 3 Page 7


5.5 Respondents were asked whether taxi services in Sefton could be improved. The results

show that the majority of respondents felt that they could not be improved.

Table 14 – Could taxi services be improved?

Alternative Mode Frequency Percent

Yes 401 38.6

No 637 61.4

Total 1038 100.0

6 Safety

6.1 Respondents were asked whether they feel safe using taxis during both the day and the night in

Sefton. The results are shown in Table 15.

Table 15 – Do you feel safe using taxis in Sefton?

Safety Yes Percent No Percent

Day 1030 98.0 20 2.0

Night 954 91.2 92 8.8

6.2 Those who commented that they do not feel safe using taxis during either the day or the night,

were asked what could be done to improve their safety and security. The responses are detailed

in Table 16.

Table 16 –Improving safety (multiple responses)

Safety Frequency Percent

CCTV in taxis 47 49.0

CCTV on ranks 27 28.1

More taxi marshals at ranks 27 28.1

Other 30 31.3

7 Rank Provision

7.1 Respondents were asked if they are satisfied with the provision of ranks throughout Sefton. The

results are shown in Table 17.

Appendix 3 Page 8


Table 17 – Provision of ranks

Frequency Percent

Yes 670 63.0

No 117 11.0

Don’t know 276 26.0

Total 1063 100.0

7.2 Those who considered the provision of ranks to be inadequate were asked what could be done to

improve them. The results are displayed in table 21.

Table 18 - How could ranks be improved (multiple responses)

Frequency Percent

More information on the location of ranks 17 14.5

Improve signage of existing ranks 9 7.7

Provide new ranks 77 65.8

Other 34 29.1

6.3 Those respondents who stated ‘other’ commented:

• More women drivers;

• Improved vetting of drivers;

• More policing;

• Panic buttons for drivers and passengers;

• Text message with drivers details when hired; and

• Shelters at ranks.

7.3 Respondents were asked whether they had ever used a landaus or a pedicab. The majority

had not. The results are shown in Table 19.

Table 19 – Have you use a landaus or a pedicab?

Frequency Percent

Yes 88 8.9

No 898 91.1

Total 986 100.0

7.4 Those respondents who stated that they had not were asked why. The most common

responses were:

Appendix 3 Page 9


• Don’t know what they are;

• Never Seen any; and

• No need to use one

7.5 Finally, respondents were asked whether they consider there to be a sufficient number of

landaus and pedicabs in Sefton. The majority of people commented that they did not know. A

breakdown of the results is provided in Table 20.

Table 20 – Are there sufficient landaus/pedicabs?

Frequency Percent

Yes 110 11.3

No 185 19.0

Do not know 680 69.7

Total 975 100.0



Tel +44 (0)113 220 8220 Fax +44 (0)113 274 2924

www.halcrow.com

Appendix 4

Project Sefton Unmet Demand Taxi Study 2010 Date 1st July 2010

Note Consultation Responses Ref CTDAMS002


1 Introduction

1.1 Guidelines issued by the Department for Transport state that consultation should be

undertaken with the following:

• all those working in the market;

• consumer and passenger (including disabled) groups;

• groups which represent those passengers with special needs;

• the Police;

• local interest groups such as hospitals or visitor attractions; and

• A wide range of transport stakeholders such as rail/bus/coach operators and transport

managers.

2 Direct Consultation

2.1 In terms of direct consultation, the Licensing Department of Sefton Metropolitan Borough

Council identified individuals to be invited to attend a meeting to discuss a series of issues

regarding the taxi market in Sefton.

2.2 Separate meetings were organised with the following:

• Sefton Hackney Carriage Trade;

• Sefton Private Hire Trade;

• Disability Representatives;

• Driver Training Stakeholders;

• Safety and Highways; and

• Chamber of Commerce/ Sefton Tourism Department

2.3 The representatives from Safety and Highways, the chamber of Commerce and the tourism

department failed to attend the meetings and have consequently provided written responses

to the consultation. The comments that were received are detailed below.

Sefton Hackney Carriage Trade

Appendix 4 Page 2

Project Sefton Taxi Study 2010 Note Consultation Responses

2.4 Representatives from the North Sefton Hackney Carriage Association and South Sefton

Hackney Carriage Association attended the focus group. The representatives

commented that there is no unmet demand in Sefton, the trade are having to work

longer hours to make a living. It was also noted that a large proportion of the private hire

trade work outside of the borough.

2.5 The representatives commented that there are a lot of ranks across the Sefton borough

however they require frequent reviews in order to ensure adequate rank provision exists

where appropriate. There is currently a demand for rank space at South Road, Waterloo

and Moor Lane, Crosby. It was commented that more ranks are needed in general at the

weekend.

2.6 The representatives commented that the NVQ in Road Passenger Transport can be

difficult for existing drivers who have not completed the VRQ as they are requested to

learn the material without assistance or resources. Some aspects of the course were

thought to be incorrect, it was stated that no training on the use of disabled facilities is

provided and the VRQ is often undertaken in 15 hours, instead of the required 70 hours.

The trade were however in favour of new drivers undertaking both the VRQ and NVQ.

2.7 It was felt that vehicle standards have recently improved and are high in relation to fares

in Sefton

Sefton Private Hire Trade

2.8 Representatives from both Delta and Berry Street Garage attended the focus group. It was

felt that a limit on the amount of hackney carriage vehicles is essential. More and more

people prefer to travel in a private hire vehicle for the convenience of a door to door service.

Private hire companies also keep a record of each passenger and provide customer care

such as lost property.

2.9 The representatives commented that hackney carriages present safety issues when they

over rank. It often occurs in loading bays and means that private hire drivers find it difficult

to safely unload passengers.

2.10 With regard to the image of the private hire trade, the representatives commented that it is

at its highest ever and is getting better. Delta has policies in place for random vehicle

inspections. It was also stated that many drivers prefer to buy new cars, again increasing

the trade’s image. With regard to the hackney carriage fleet, it was felt that the image is

appalling, particularly in the south of the borough, which has a poor reflection on the rest of

the borough.

Appendix 4 Page 3


2.11 The NVQ has improved customer care and driver attitudes and at Delta, is used as a

rehabilitation tool when drivers have been suspended from work.

2.12 The representative commented that there is unmet demand on a Saturday night however,

all private hire vehicles have got GPS enabling a quicker and more efficient service. Delta

are now turning away less work than ever.

Disability Representatives

2.13 Halcrow Group Ltd attended the Sefton Accessibility Forum. It was commented that the

majority of drivers are helpful when transporting those with disabilities, however there are a

few who refuse to take guide dogs. Additionally some vehicles do not have belts available to

properly secure wheelchairs, meaning that wheelchair users are often required to hold on to

internal rails.

2.14 The representatives felt that drivers would benefit from training provided by disabled people,

particularly on aspects such as loading and fixing wheelchairs into the vehicle. It was also

felt that the NVQ level 2 in Road Passenger Transport should be compulsory for all drivers.

2.15 It was considered that there are insufficient wheelchair accessible vehicles. One member of

the forum mentioned that there are no wheelchair accessible vehicles in Formby. It was felt

that all new taxis should be wheelchair accessible and it was requested that a range of

vehicles should be available across Sefton.

2.16 The representatives commented that it can be particularly difficult to order a taxi during

peak hours as a large amount of drivers have contracts with social services transporting

children to school.

Driver Training, Hugh Baird College

2.17 A representative from Hugh Baird College attended the focus group. The college offers both

the VRQ in Road Passenger Transport and the NVQ in Road Passenger Transport. The

VRQ provides students with the theory behind Road Passenger Transport and prepares

them for the NVQ which focuses more on the practical applications.

2.18 It is compulsory for new drivers to undertake the VRQ and the knowledge test before they

gain their badge. Existing drivers may undertake a fast track VRQ which involves one

session a week for six weeks.

Appendix 4 Page 4


2.19 The college has received positive feedback from those who have taken part, some have

even gone on to train others and are now employed by the college part time. All the

assessors and trainers have been taxi drivers at some point in their career.

2.20 The representative commented that some changes to the existing programme, such as

additional training on the knowledge test and sessions on exam techniques, would be

beneficial.

2.21 The representative stated that there was a lot of funding at the start of the programme

which meant that the course would run every couple of weeks. However, the amount of

funding has now reduced so it runs less often. In the response to redundancies, anyone

unemployed is able to do the course for free. Those who are employed can pay a reduced

rate of £150 which is refunded if they complete the NVQ.

3 Indirect Consultation

3.1 In addition to the face to face consultation undertaken a number of stakeholders were

contacted by letter. This in turn assured the DfT guidelines were fulfilled and all relevant

organisations and bodies were provided with an opportunity to comment.

3.2 In accordance with advice issued by the DfT the following organisations were contacted:

• Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council;

• User/disability groups representing those passengers with special needs;

• Local interest groups including hospitals, visitor attractions, entertainment outlets and

education establishments; and

• Rain, bus and coach operators.

3.3 The comments received are outlined below.

Traffic Services, Planning and Economic Regeneration, Sefton Council

3.4 A representative from traffic services responded to the letter of written consultation. It was

commented that hackney carriages primarily operate and rank at opposite ends of the

Borough, namely Bootle and Southport. An adequate number of cabs are visible on ranks in

both Bootle and Southport throughout the day and night. The representative suggested that

the south of the Borough (Bootle and Crosby) is more than adequately served as Delta

Taxis is one of Merseyside’s largest private hire firms. Southport has a number of smaller

private hire companies but again, large numbers can be seen across Southport throughout

the day and night.

3.5 With regard to the provision of ranks in the borough, the representative stated that any

requests for additional ranks or changes to existing ones are made directly to the Traffic

Appendix 4 Page 5


Services Unit as per the policy approved by both sides of the trade. Any changes to ranks

are consulted upon with numerous representatives including both hackney carriage and

private hire organisations, before being put to the relevant Area Committee for approval.

The Traffic Services Unit has never had any complaints about the accessibility of ranks.

3.6 The representative commented that both sides of the taxi trade are fully integrated into the

Merseyside Local Transport Plan, and are seen as a valuable public service. In Sefton, both

private hire and hackney carriage vehicles are treated exactly the same, and are exempt

from numerous Traffic Regulation Orders, such as bus lanes and Prohibition of Driving

Orders.

Merseylearn, Merseytravel

3.7 A representative from Merseylearn responded to the letter of written consultation. Based on

feedback received from drivers who have completed the training, and operators of radio

firms, it was felt that training can greatly improve the image of the trade. The training is

carried out to National Occupational Standards and portrays a professional image to both

users and organisations such as Merseylearn, school transport allocators, social services

and the NHS.

3.8 Training provided by Merseylearn covers both the theory elements of being a taxi driver and

how to apply the theory in a practical situation. Areas covered by the training include,

disability awareness, health and safety, dealing with difficult customers, topographical

knowledge and driving passenger transport vehicles.

3.9 The representative commented that new driver applicants are required to undertake

vocational training as part of their licensing remit. The same training is used as a

rehabilitation tool in Sefton’s disciplinary procedures.

3.10 It was felt that Sefton Council, along with the hackney carriage trade, take their

responsibilities towards their customers and their drivers seriously and are willing to go the

extra mile to have a constantly improving service.

Sefton East Parishes Area Committee

3.11 A representative from Sefton East Parishes Area Committee commented that there is an

inadequate supply of hackney carriage vehicles in Sefton East and it can be difficult to

acquire a private hire vehicle during busy periods.

3.12 It was felt that the image of the trade with regard to vehicle and driver quality is ‘good’.

However, the representative stated that there are no ranks in Sefton East and there is a lack

of accessible vehicle available.

Appendix 4 Page 6


3.13 The representative felt that the level and structure of fares in Sefton is medium, although it

was felt that there is insufficient advertising of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles.

The representative commented that they feel safe using both hackney carriages and private

hire vehicles.

3.14 Finally, it was felt that Sefton would benefit from de-restricting the number of hackney

carriages.

Melling Parish Council

3.15 Melling Parish Council responded to the consultation, stating that the provision of both

hackney carriages and private hire vehicles is adequate. However, given the inadequacy

of public transport services in parts of the parish area and at certain times, a community

bus facility would be beneficial to Melling residents. Should a private hire firm wish to

consider offering such a service they would be supported by the Parish Council.

Peterhouse School

3.16 A representative from Peterhouse School, an independent special school for children

aged 5-19, responded to the consultation. With regard to the provision of hackney

carriage vehicles, the representative commented that they had seen very few in the

area. On the other hand, the provision of private hire services, particularly Delta, was

considered to be very good, having an extensive service across all times of the day

throughout the borough.

3.17 With regard to the image of the private hire trade, the representative commented that

many vehicles look dated, although the quality and attitudes of drivers was considered to

be ‘good’, particularly when travelling with children with disabilities.

3.18 It was not felt that any additional ranks are needed in the Sefton Borough. In order to

make taxis more accessible, the representative commented that larger vehicles could be

provided for people with autism.

3.19 The representative felt that the level and structure of fares in Sefton is medium although

publicity of both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles could be improved. The

representative from Peterhouse School stated that they feel safe whilst using taxis in

Sefton and that taxis are readily available to take people to other transport links.



Tel +44 (0)113 220 8220 Fax +44 (0)113 274 2924

www.halcrow.com

Appendix 5

Project Sefton Unmet Demand Survey 2010 Date 12th July 2010

Note Trade Survey Results Ref CTDAMS002


1 Introduction

1.1 A public and private hire trade survey was designed with the aim of collecting

information and views from both trades. In particular the survey allowed an

assessment of operational issues and views of the hackney carriage market to

supplement the rank observations, as well as covering enforcement and disability

issues.

2 Survey Administration

2.1 The survey was conducted through a self completion questionnaire. These were

sent to 4050 licensed hackney and private hire drivers and operators in Sefton. A

total of 296 questionnaire forms were completed and returned, giving a response

rate of around 7.3%, a typical value for this type of survey. It should be noted that

not all totals sum to the total number of respondents per trade group as some

respondents failed to answer all questions.

3 General Operational Issues

3.1 The responses provided have been disaggregated on a hackney carriage and

private hire trade basis as shown in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 Breakdown of Responses between Trades

Frequency Percent

Hackney Carriage Trade 87 29.5

Private Hire Trade 208 70.5

Total 218 100.0

3.2 The survey asked respondents how long they had been involved with either the

hackney carriage or private hire trade in Sefton. Table 3.2 below shows the

responses.

Table 3.2 Duration of Respondents Involvement in the Hackney/Private Hire Trade

Hackney Carriage Trade Private Hire Trade Years

Frequency % Frequency %

0 – 2 7 8.0 41 19.7

2 – 5 7 8.0 41 19.7

5 – 10 14 16.1 37 17.8

10 – 15 10 11.5 41 19.7

15 – 20 11 12.6 13 6.3

Over 20 38 43.7 35 16.8

Total 87 100.0 208 100.0

3.3 Table 3.2 indicates that 67.8% of hackney carriage respondents have been

involved in the Sefton taxi trade for over 10 years as have 42.8% of the private

hire trade.

3.4 Table 3.3 indicates the proportion of the trade who subscribe to a radio circuit.

Almost all of private hire respondents (96.4%) subscribe to a radio circuit

compared with over two thirds (64.3%) of hackney carriage respondents.

Table 3.3 Do you subscribe to a radio circuit?

Hackney Trade Private Hire Trade

Frequency % Frequency %

Yes 54 64.3 187 96.4

No 30 35.7 7 3.6

Total 84 100.0 194 100.0

3.5 Respondents were asked to estimate the origin of their passenger fares for a

week. The results are documented in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Average Origin of Passenger Fares

Hackney Carriage Private Hire

Mean % Min Max Mean % Min Max

Rank 61.9 0 100 0 0 0

Flagdown 8.5 0 80 0 0 0

Radio Circuit 23.9 0 100 84.5 0 100

Other telephone booking 0.8 0 20 13.2 0 100

Contract Work 4.7 0 75 1.8 0 40

3.6 The average proportion of rank work for hackney carriages accounts for 61.9%

per week. However some hackney carriages stated that they did not work from

a rank. The average percentage of flagdown work for hackney carriages

accounts for 8.5% of the typical week, with radio circuit work accounting for

23.9% and contract work 4.7%.

3.7 Radio Circuit work accounts for the majority of private hire driver’s working

week at an average of 84.5% with other telephone bookings accounting for an

average of 13.2%. Contract work accounts for 13.2% of a typical private hire

drivers working week.

4 Driving

4.1 Respondents were asked what type of vehicle they drove most frequently. Over

half of hackney carriage drivers (59%) drive a purpose built cab and the majority

of private hire drivers (93.7 %) drive a Saloon car. Some 5.8% of private hire

drivers drive a minibus or people carrier which is not wheelchair accessible.

Table 4.1 Duration of Respondents Involvement in the Hackney/Private Hire Trade



Saloon Car 31 37.4 195 93.7

Minibus/People Carrier (Wheelchair accessible) 3 3.6 1 0.5

Purpose built cab 49 59.0 0 0.0

Minibus/People Carrier (Non-Wheelchair accessible) 0 0.0 12 5.8

Total 83 100.0 208 100.0

4.2 Respondents were asked the average number of hours they worked in a

typical week. The hackney carriage trade worked on average 52 hours per

week, whilst the private hire trade worked for 54 hours per week.

4.3 Respondents were asked to state how many hours they worked at different

times of day during a typical week. Figure 4.1 documents the average hours

worked during the daytime period (06:00-18:00) for each day of the week. On

average, the hackney carriage trade work for more hours during the daytime

than the private hire drivers. It also shows that both trades tend to work less

hours during the day on the weekends than during the weekdays.

Figure 4.1 Average daytime hours worked

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Ho

urs HC

PH

4.4 Figure 4.2 shows the average number of hours worked during the

evening/night period (18:00-06:00). During the night time period the private

hire drivers work, on average, longer hours than the hackney carriage drivers.

It also shows that both trades work for longer hours on a Friday and Saturday

night compared with other nights during the week.

Figure 4.2 Average night time hours worked

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


Ho

urs HC

PH

4.5 The trade were asked whether the Licensing Act 2003 had had an effect on then.

The results are shown below in Table 4.2. 47.6% of hackney carriage

respondents stated that it had not had an effect on them compared with 63.1% of

private hire respondents.

Table 4.2 Has the Licensing Act affected you?



Yes 43 52.4 73 36.9

No 39 47.6 125 63.1

Total 82 100.0 198 100.0

4.6 Those who replied that it had had an effect on their typical working week were

then asked in what way it had affected them.

Table 4.3 Effects of the 2003 Licensing Act (Multiple responses)



Work later in the evening 30 63.8 49 61.3

Work for longer hours 33 70.2 51 63.8

Other 7 14.9 17 21.3

4.7 Responses were similar across both trades with 63.8% of the hackney carriage

responses and 61.3% of the private hire trades responses stating that they

worked later in the evening. Some 70.2% of hackney carriage drivers stated

that they had to work longer hours compared with 63.8% of private hire

respondents.

4.8 Of those that stated ‘other’ they explained that since the Licensing Act 2003, work

is more spread out, there is not a mad rush at 02:00am, they have to work longer

hours and customers can be more abusive.

4.9 Respondents were asked to state the number of times they carry disabled

passengers on a weekly basis. Table 4.4 shows the results. Some 38.1% of

hackney carriage respondents and 67% of private hire respondents were

typically more likely to carry between one and five disabled persons per week.

Some 22.6% of hackney carriage drivers and 27.7% of private hire drivers

typically never carry physically disabled passengers.

Table 4.4 Frequency of Transport of Disabled Persons



Never 19 22.6 57 27.7

1to 5 32 38.1 138 67.0

5 to 10 12 14.3 6 2.9

10 to 20 10 11.9 4 1.9

More than 20 11 13.1 1 0.5

Total 84 100.0 206 100.0

5 Safety and Security

5.1 Respondents were asked whether they had been attacked by a passenger in

the last year. Table 5.1 details the results.

Table 5.1 Frequency of attacks by passengers within the last year (multiple

responses)



Physically attacked 9 10.8 26 12.9

Verbally attacked 36 43.4 109 54.0

Not attacked 44 53.0 88 43.6

5.2 Some 10.8% of the hackney carriage trade and 12.9% of the private hire trade

have been physically attacked within the last twelve months, with 43.4% and 54%

respectively being verbally attacked.

5.3 The trade were asked if they felt safe whilst working as a taxi driver in Sefton, the

results of which are shown below in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Do you feel safe whilst working as a Taxi Driver in Sefton?



Yes, all of the time 34 40.5 60 29.5

Some of the time 43 51.2 137 67.5

None of the time 7 8.3 6 3.0

Total 84 100.0 203 100.0

5.4 Some 51.2% of hackney carriage respondents stated that they felt safe some of

the time compared to 67.5% of private hire respondents. Only 8.3% of hackney

carriage respondents felt safe none of the time compared with 3.0% of private hire

respondents.

5.5 Those respondents who felt unsafe working in Sefton were then asked when

they felt unsafe. The results are outlined below in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 When do you feel unsafe working in Sefton? (Multiple responses)



Daytime 3 6.0 24 17.3

Night time 43 86.0 104 74.8

In certain areas 15 30.0 70 50.4

5.6 The majority of both the hackney carriage respondents (86%) and private hire

respondents (74.8%) stated that they felt unsafe whilst working at night in Sefton.

5.7 Some 30% of hackney carriage respondents and 50.4% of private hire

respondents feel unsafe in certain areas of Sefton. The areas that were most

commonly suggested as being unsafe were Kirkdale, Norris Green, Bootle,

Croxteth and Anfield.

6 Ranks

6.1 Members of both trades were asked whether they believe there is sufficient rank

space in Sefton. As shown in Table 6.1, the majority of the hackney carriage

respondents (83.7%) stated that there was not sufficient rank space for hackneys,

whereas in contrast the majority of private hire respondents felt that there was

sufficient rank space (63.5%). The hackney carriage trade commented that there

are too many cabs and not enough work, whereas the private hire trade

commented that some ranks in Sefton are not used.

Table 6.1 Sufficient rank space available for hackneys to use in Sefton?



Yes 13 16.3 66 63.5

No 67 83.7 38 36.5

Total 80 100.0 104 100.0

6.2 The trade were asked whether there were any areas where a new rank should be

located. Table 6.2 shows that 82.9% of hackney carriage respondents state that

there are areas in Sefton where there should be new ranks. In contrast the

majority of private hire respondents (89.7%) said that there should be no new

ranks.

Table 6.2 Are there any areas where there should be new hackney ranks?



Yes 63 82.9 11 10.3

No 13 17.1 96 89.7

Total 76 100.0 107 100.0

6.3 Of those that stated that there should be new ranks, the most common areas

requested were Lord Street, Southport and South Road, Waterloo.

6.4 In response to the question asking whether there are any ranks in Sefton that

should be longer or have more spaces, 75% of the hackney carriage trade felt this

was necessary, whereas 88.7% of the private hire trade said that there was no

requirement. It was felt that there are too many cabs and additional cabs from

Bootle are now working in Southport, particularly on a weekend night. The most

common suggested locations for extending ranks were South Road, Waterloo,

North Road, Southport Lord Street, Liverpool Road and Lord Street, Southport.

Table 6.3 Ranks in Sefton that should be longer or have more spaces



Yes 57 75.0 12 11.3

No 19 25.0 94 88.7

Total 76 100.0 106 100.0

6.5 The trade were then asked whether any ranks should be removed. The

majority of both Hackney carriage and private hire respondents (76.4% and

65% respectively) stated that no ranks in Sefton needed to be removed. Of

those respondents that did state that ranks needed to be removed, the most

common were;

• South Road, Waterloo;

• Outside Vincent Hotel, Southport;

• North Road, Southport;

• Liverpool Road; and

• Lord Street, Southport.

Table 6.4 Do any ranks in Sefton need to be removed?



Yes 17 23.6 35 35.0

No 55 76.4 65 65.0

Total 72 100.0 100 100.0

7 Vehicle Age Restrictions

7.1 Members of both trades were asked about whether they felt current hackney

carriage vehicle conditions were satisfactory in relation to age limits and

frequency of testing. Table 7.3 documents the results.

Table 7.3 Are the current hackney carriage vehicle conditions satisfactory?



Satisfactory 63 75.0 157 79.7

Unsatisfactory 21 25.0 40 20.3

Total 84 100.0 197 100.0

7.2 Table 7.3 highlights that three quarters of the hackney carriage respondents

(75%) think the current vehicle conditions are satisfactory whilst just over three

quarters of private hire respondents were of the same opinion (79.7%).

7.3 Those respondents who deemed the vehicle age conditions to be unsatisfactory

provided the following reasons:

• Age is irrelevant if vehicle can pass relevant tests;

• Tests should be every 12 months, not every 6 months; and

• Older vehicles can often be in better condition that newer ones.

7.4 Members of both trades were also asked whether they consider the current

number and locations of testing stations to be satisfactory. Table 7.4 documents

the results.

Table 7.4 Are the number and locations of testing stations sufficient?





Total 83 100.0 197 100.0

7.5 Table 7.4 highlights that the majority of hackney carriage respondents (77.1%)

think the current number and locations of the testing stations are satisfactory as

do 75.6% of the private hire respondents.

7.6 Those respondents who deemed the number and locations of the testing stations

to be unsatisfactory provided the following reasons:

• There should be more to increase competition and improve service to drivers;

• Waiting times are really long;

• There is not enough choice; and

• There are too many cabs for the number of testing stations.

7.7 Members of both trades were also asked whether they consider the service

provided by the testing stations to be satisfactory. Table 7.4 documents the

results.

Table 7.4 Is the service provided by the testing stations satisfactory?





Total 83 100.0 197 100.0

7.8 Table 7.4 highlights that the majority of hackney carriage respondents (95.2%)

think the service provided by the testing stations is satisfactory, as do 90.4% of

the private hire respondents.

8 Fares

8.1 Members of both trades were asked for their opinions regarding the current level

of hackney carriage fares. Table 8.1 indicates the responses.

Table 8.1 Opinions Relating to Hackney Carriage Fares



Too high 2 2.4 49 26.9

Too low 44 52.4 25 13.7

About right 35 41.7 40 22.0

None/no opinion 3 3.6 68 37.4

Total 84 100.0 182 100.0

8.2 The majority of hackney carriage respondents (52.4%) considered hackney

carriage fares to be too low. However private hire respondents were more split

with 37.4% having no opinion, 26.9% stating that they were too high, and 22%

said they were about right.

9 Training

9.1 Both trades were asked if they felt that taxi drivers receive enough training before

being granted a taxi drivers licence. The majority of the hackney carriage trade

(54.2%) were of the opinion that training was insufficient compared with 56.2% of

the private hire trade.

Table 9.1 Do you feel drivers receive sufficient training?



Yes 38 45.8 88 43.8

No 45 54.2 113 56.2

Total 83 100.0 201 100.0

9.2 Those respondents who stated that they didn’t think they received sufficient

training were then asked what training they would like to see offered to drivers.

The results are shown in Table 9.2 below.

Table 9.2 Opinions related to training (Multiple Response)



English Language 39 73.6 101 79.5

Customer Care 36 67.9 82 64.6

Disability Awareness 32 60.4 66 52.0

Driving Ability Test 30 56.6 88 69.3

Other 11 20.8 35 27.6

9.3 The hackney carriage trade felt that English Language, Customer Care and

Disability Awareness training are the most important training they would like to

see offered to drivers with 73.6%, 67.9% and 60.4% respectively. The private hire

drivers were of a similar opinion with 79.5%, 64.6% and 52.0% respectively. Of

those that stated other training, the most common suggestion was a harder

knowledge test of the Sefton area.

9.4 Respondents were then asked whether the training should be compulsory or

voluntary. Of those who answered this question, some 83.3% of the hackney

carriage trade and 92.7% of the private hire trade felt the training should be

compulsory.

Table 9.3 Should this training be compulsory or voluntary?



Compulsory 60 83.3 153 92.7

Voluntary 12 16.7 12 7.3

Total 72 100.0 165 100.0

10 Taxi Market in Sefton

10.1 Members of both trades were asked if they were aware that Sefton Metropolitan

Borough Council enforces a numerical limit of 271 on the number of hackney

carriage vehicle licences in Sefton. The results are outlined in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 Were you aware that there is a numerical limit on the number of hackney

carriage vehicle licences in Sefton?



Yes 62 72.9 55 29.1

No 23 27.1 134 70.9

Total 85 100.0 189 100.0

10.2 The majority of the hackney carriage respondents were aware of the numerical

limit (72.9%) compared with just 29.1% of the private hire respondents.

10.3 Members of both trades were asked whether they consider there are sufficient

hackney carriages to meet the current level of demand in Sefton. Table 10.2

indicates the responses.

Table 10.2 Do you consider there to be sufficient hackney carriages to meet the

current level of demand in Sefton?



Yes, too many 55 64.7 75 40.5

Yes, sufficient 22 25.9 57 30.8

No, not during all periods of the day 4 4.7 6 3.2

No Opinion 2 2.4 23 12.4

Don’t Know 2 2.4 24 13.0

Total 85 100.0 185 100.0

10.4 The majority of respondents from the hackney carriage trade (64.7%) consider

there to be too many hackney carriages to meet the demand in Sefton, compared

to 40.5% of private hire drivers.

10.5 Those respondents that did not consider there to be enough hackney carriages at

certain times were then asked at which periods more hackney carriages were

required. The responses are shown in table 10.3.

Table 10.3 When are more hackney carriages required in Sefton?



During the daytime 1 20.0 1 10.0

During the evening/night 0 0.0 4 40.0

All day and night 4 80.0 5 50.0

Total 5 100.0 10 100.0

10.6 Of those who answered the question both the majority of hackney carriage and

private hire drivers felt that more hackney carriages were needed at all times of

the day and night with 80.0% and 50% respectively.

10.7 All respondents were asked to state how many hackney carriages there should

be in the fleet in Sefton. The results are detailed in Table 10.4.

Table 10.4 Opinion on Ideal Hackney Carriage Fleet Size in Sefton



Under 271 31 54.4 40 53.3

271 22 38.6 22 29.3

Over 271 4 7.0 13 17.3

Total 57 100.0 75 100.0

10.8 Of those drivers who responded, 54.4% of the hackney carriage trade felt that the

hackney carriage fleet size should be less than the present number, compared to

53.3% of private hire respondents. Some 17.3% of private hire respondents felt

that the hackney carriage fleet size should be increased compared with 7% of the

hackney carriage respondents.

10.9 The average size of Hackney Carriage fleet considered for Sefton was 241 for

the hackney carriage trade compared with 258 cited by the private hire trade.

10.10 All respondents were asked to state if they thought that Sefton MBC should

remove the numerical limit on the number of hackney carriage vehicle. The

responses are detailed in Tables 10.5.

Table 10.5 Opinion on Removing Current Limit on Number of Hackney Licences



Yes 7 8.2 25 13.6

No 74 87.1 111 60.3

No opinion 4 4.7 48 26.1

Total 85 100.0 184 100.0

10.11 The majority of respondents from the hackney carriage trade (87.1%) felt that

the numerical limit should not be removed in Sefton compared to 60.3% of

private hire respondents. Some 13.6% of private hire respondents wished for

the limit to be removed.

10.12 Views were sought regarding the likely impact on a series of factors if Sefton

Council were to remove the existing limit on hackney carriage licences. The

findings are summarised below and presented in Table 10.6.

Congestion

10.13 The majority of respondents from the hackney carriage trade (79%) felt

congestion would increase, compared to 57.1% from the private hire trade felt

this would be the case.

Fares

10.14 Some 40.2% of hackney carriage respondents felt that fares would decrease

following de-restriction, with 57.1% of the private hire stating that there would

be no effect.

Passenger Waiting Times

10.15 The majority of hackney carriage respondents believe that passenger waiting

times at ranks, when flagged or when booked by telephone would not be

affected. The majority of private hire drivers considered that waiting times at

ranks or when flagging a taxi would either decrease or have no effect if the

existing limit on the number of licences was removed.

Vehicle Quality

10.16 Over half of respondents from the hackney carriage trade felt hackney vehicle

and private hire vehicle quality would decrease, compared to over half of the

private hire trade respondents stating that there would be no change.

Effectiveness of Enforcement

10.17 With regard to effectiveness of enforcement, 53.8% of the hackney carriage

trade were of the opinion that removing existing licence restrictions would

result in a decrease. Over a third of the private hire trade felt that it would

decrease (41.8%).

Illegal Plying for Hire

10.18 In terms of illegal plying for hire by private hire vehicles, 31.4% of the private

hire trade were of the opinion that a change in licence restriction conditions

would have no effect on this activity, compared to only 6.1% of hackney

carriage drivers.

Over Ranking

10.19 Both the hackney carriage and private hire trade felt over ranking would

increase, with a response of 89.3% and 74.2% respectively.

Customer Satisfaction

10.20 Over one third of private hire drivers (44.9%) were of the opinion that customer

satisfaction would not be affected as a result of the removal of the licence limit,

compared to 47.4% of the hackney trade.

Table 10.6 Opinions Relating to the Impact of De-Restriction


Increase No

Effect

Decrease Increase No

Effect

Decrease

Traffic Congestion 79.0 21.0 0.0 57.1 40.6 2.4

Fares 20.7 39.0 40.2 15.5 57.1 27.4

Passenger waiting times at ranks 5.2 75.3 19.5 5.4 41.1 53.6

Passenger waiting time when

flagdown

3.8 78.5 17.7 3.6 41.3 55.1

Passenger waiting time by phone 6.4 79.5 14.1 7.2 50.6 42.2

Hackney carriage vehicle quality 12.5 26.3 61.3 11.8 51.5 36.7

Private hire vehicle quality 5.3 35.5 59.2 17.3 57.0 25.7

Effectiveness of enforcement 6.4 39.7 53.8 18.2 41.8 40.0

Illegal plying for hire – private hire 68.3 25.6 6.1 36.5 42.9 20.6

Illegal plying for hire – unlicensed 55.8 39.0 5.2 38.4 43.6 18.0

Over ranking 89.3 8.3 2.4 74.2 15.7 10.1

Customer satisfaction 10.3 47.4 42.3 26.1 44.9 29.0

10.21 All respondents were asked their response to “There is not enough work to

support the current number of hackney carriages”. The results in table 10.7

show that the majority of hackney carriage respondents (87%) strongly agree or

agree with the statement that there is not enough work to support the current

number of hackney carriages. Some 62.8% of private hire respondents were of

the same opinion.

Table 10.7 Opinion of: “There is not enough work to support the current number of

hackney carriages”?



Strongly disagree 6 7.1 12 6.7

Disagree 1 1.2 18 10.0


Agree 20 23.5 39 21.7


Total 85 100.0 180 100.0

10.22 Some of the most common responses to the statement:

• Not enough work

• Long waiting times between fares and full ranks

• Too many cabs

• Too many private hire licences issued

10.23 The survey then asked opinions of the following statement; “Removing the limit

on the number of hackney carriages in Sefton would benefit the public by

reducing waiting times at ranks”. The results in table 10.8 shows that 82.9% of

hackney carriage drivers strongly disagreed or disagreed that removing the limit

on the number of hackney carriages in Sefton would benefit the public by reducing

waiting times at ranks, compared with 46.1% of Private Hire respondents.

Table 10.8 Opinion of: “Removing the limit on the number of hackney carriages in

Sefton would benefit the public by reducing waiting times at ranks”?




Disagree 10 12.2 24 14.4


Agree 3 3.7 38 22.8


Total 82 100.0 167 100.0


• Already queues of cabs on ranks

• Public rarely wait

10.25 The survey then asked opinions of the following statement; “There are special

circumstances in Sefton that make the retention of the numerical limit

essential”. The results in table 10.9 show that 77.3% of hackney carriage trade

agree or strongly agree that there are special circumstances in Sefton that make

the retention of the numerical limit essential, compared with 41.3% of private hire

respondents.

Table 10.9 Opinion of: “There are special circumstances in Sefton that make the

retention of the numerical limit essential”




Disagree 1 1.3 7 4.5


Agree 10 12.8 28 18.1


Total 78 100.0 155 100.0


• Not aware of any special circumstances

• No unmet demand

• Not enough work

10.27 Finally the trade were asked what effect they thought it would have on them if

the authority removed the numerical limit. The results show in table 10.10 that

68.6% of hackney carriage responses cited they would work more hours if the

numerical limit of hackney carriages was removed, as would 48.1% of private

hire respondents. Some 50% of hackney responses stated that they would

leave the trade if Sefton derestricted. In contrast 32% of private hire drivers

said they would not change if the limit was removed, and 11% said they would

switch from private hire to hackney.

10.28 Of those respondents who stated another effect de restriction would have, the

main concerns were that they would not make enough money and so would have

to work longer hours.

Table 10.10 Effect on the trade if the numerical limit was removed (Multiple responses)

Hackney Carriage Trade Private Hire Trade Effect of removing the limit


No change 7 8.1 58 32.0

Work more hours 59 68.6 87 48.1

Work fewer hours 0 0.0 12 6.6

Acquire a hackney vehicle licence 2 2.3 15 8.3

Acquire more than one hackney vehicle

licence

4 4.7 2 1.1

Switch from hackney to private hire 1 1.2 7 3.9

Switch from private hire to hackney 2 2.3 20 11.0

Leave the trade 43 50.0 47 26.0

Other 9 10.5 11 6.1

sefton metropolitan borough council

Documents