Taxi Fares and Tariffs and Taximeter Specification …...• Additional surveys amongst taxi drivers...

Taxi Fares and Tariffs, and Taximeter Specification review 2017

Consultation Report March 2017

Taxi Fares and Tariffs, and Taximeter Specification review 2017

Consultation ReportMarch 2017

Contents Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 4

Next steps ................................................................................................................ 4

1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Detailed description ........................................................................................ 6

2. About the consultation ...................................................................................... 10

2.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 10

2.2 Potential outcomes ....................................................................................... 10

2.3 Who we consulted ........................................................................................ 10

2.4 Dates and duration ....................................................................................... 10

2.5 What we asked ............................................................................................. 11

2.6 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 11

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ............................................................. 11

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses .............................................................. 12

3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 13

3.1 Number of respondents ................................................................................ 13

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ........................................... 13

3.3 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 14

3.4 Respondent type .......................................................................................... 14

4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 15

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 .......................................................... 17









2

4.10 Summary of responses to Question 10 ..................................................... 30

4.11 Summary of stakeholder responses .......................................................... 32

4.12 Comments on the consultation.................................................................. 35

5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A: Stakeholders we consulted ................................................................... 37

Appendix B: Consultation questions .......................................................................... 40

Appendix C: Consultation notifications ...................................................................... 45

Appendix E: Codeframes .......................................................................................... 49

3

Executive summary This document explains the processes, responses and next steps of the consultation on taxi fares and tariffs and the taximeter specification.

Between 10 January and 19 February 2017 we consulted on proposed changes to taxi fares and tariffs and the taximeter specification and received 1,258 responses. The majority of respondents did not support the changes to the taxi fares and tariffs but did agree that we should update the taximeter specification to allow for tariff updates to be done remotely.

Next steps Following a review of the consultation responses revised recommendations for changes to the taxi fares and tariffs were submitted to the TfL Board for consideration at its meeting on 29 March 2017. The Board approved were asked to approve the changes to the taximeter specification.

Changes to the taxi fares and tariffs came into effect on Saturday 3 June 2017.

4

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction Transport for London (TfL) is a statutory body established by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and is the licensing authority for London’s taxi and private hire industries. It is the largest licensing authority in the country, being responsible for licensing approximately one third of all taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs) in England.

The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 and the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907 allow TfL to make regulations setting taxi fares. TfL may prescribe fares based on time or distance or both and may prescribe different fares for different circumstances.

The London Cab Order 1934 (as amended) sets the fares regime that covers most taxi journeys in London. The Cab Order sets out the fare structure and provides a maximum fare payable. Drivers can charge a lower fare.

Taxi fares are normally revised annually and the revision is based on changes to a Cost Index in use since 1981. The index combines changes in operating costs with changes in national earnings, to produce a change in average fares aimed at maintaining drivers’ earnings.

In February 2016, the TfL Board requested a review of the current taxi fares and tariffs structure. This was requested because of concerns that taxi fares and tariffs were considered too high by the public and also some taxi drivers - research carried out in 2015 showed that just under two thirds (61 per cent) of taxi passengers thought that taxi fares were much or a little too expensive1. TfL commissioned consultants to carry out a full in-depth and independent review of taxi fares and tariffs and a number of other related issues. The recommended changes to the fares and tariffs that came out of the review were then consulted on along with proposed changes to the taximeter speciation.

1.2 Purpose The purpose of the consultation was to set out proposals for changes to the London taxi fares and tariffs and the taximeter specification. This followed an independent review of the current fares and tariffs and a number of recommendations being made.

1 Taxi and Minicab Passenger Customer Satisfaction Survey, TNS, 2015/16

5

Consultees were invited to comment on any aspect of the proposals or make other suggestions and provide any evidence relevant to the issues or proposals.

1.3 Detailed description Taxi fares and tariffs are normally reviewed annually with any changes coming into effect in early April each year.

Previous tariff reviews have adhered to three basic principles which are:

• Using the taxi Cost Index to guide the increase in average fares • Maintaining reasonable differentials between the day, evening/weekend and

late night tariffs • Maintaining a reasonable progression of fare with journey length

The Cost Index has been used for several years and provides a mechanism for calculating tariff changes taking into account changes in the cost of operating a taxi. However, the Cost Index does not allow driver or public opinion to be taken into account when reviewing tariffs and does not necessarily reflect the general economic or social state at the time.

In 2015, the overall passenger satisfaction score for London’s taxi services was 84 out of 100 and the overall satisfaction score has remained fairly consistent since 2002. However, the same research showed that just under two thirds (61 per cent) of taxi passengers thought that taxi fares were much or a little too expensive. Minicab users were also asked for their opinion of taxi fares and the majority (84 per cent) thought that taxi fares were much or a little too expensive whilst over half (54 per cent) of taxi users thought that minicab fares were about right2.

Furthermore, research amongst taxi drivers from 2015/163 showed that:

• 32 per cent of taxi drivers stated that fares on weekday nights (Monday – Thursday) were too high

• 24 per cent of taxi drivers stated that fares on Friday and Saturdays nights were too high

• 25 per cent of taxi drivers stated that fares on Sunday nights were too high • 19 per cent of taxi drivers stated that fares on public holidays were too high

Increased tariffs in the evenings, at weekends and at night are intended to encourage drivers to work at these times, however the findings from the research suggest that these increased tariffs may deter the public from using taxis at these times and that this along with increased competition may be negatively affecting the demand for taxis.

2 Taxi and Minicab Passenger Customer Satisfaction Survey, TNS, 2015/16 3 Taxi and Private Hire Licensee Customer Satisfaction Survey, TNS, 2015/16

6

At the February 2016 TfL Board meeting, the Board approved the proposed changes but at the same time expressed concerns that taxi fares were too high and so asked for a wider review of taxi fares and tariffs to be conducted.

Following the Board meeting, we commissioned Systra, an independent transport consultancy, to carry out this review for us.

The review contained a number of different elements including:

• Reviewing the demand for taxis and potential ‘unmet’ demand • Reviewing the supply of taxis and the time drivers spent with a passenger on-

board • A survey amongst taxi drivers about taxi fares and tariffs • A survey amongst taxi passengers about taxi fares and tariffs • Additional surveys amongst taxi drivers and passengers at Heathrow Airport • Asking the taxi trade associations, radio circuits, app companies, passenger

groups and other relevant stakeholders for their views on taxi fares and tariffs • Looking at the current Cost Index elements and data sources for each

element to establish if these sources were still appropriate and if there were suitable alternative models for calculating changes to taxi fares

The main findings from the review were that while monitoring the year on year changes to the costs of operating a taxi in London, there were also some potential changes to the current fares and tariffs which could help increase the usage of taxis at certain times and also ensure drivers are adequately compensated.

The recommended package of changes included the following:

• The Social Costs element of the Cost Index should be removed, because this was originally introduced to compensate drivers working late at night; this is now achieved via the three tariff rates.

• Increasing the soiling charge in order to reflect the likely costs drivers face • Reducing Tariff 3, to make taxi journeys late at night more attractive • Extending the distance when the tariff rate for longer journeys applies from six

miles to between 10 and 12 miles, to make longer taxi journeys more attractive

• Increasing the minimum fare

The report also recommended that further consideration was needed for the following areas:

• Setting fixed fares for journeys from central London to Heathrow Airport • Setting capped fares for journeys from Heathrow Airport to central London • Allowing more flexibility when setting fares for booked taxi journeys

7

Consultation Proposals

1.3.1 Changes to taxi fares and tariffs in London continuing to be initially based on changes to the Cost Index

Changes to taxi fares and tariffs in London continuing to be initially based on changes to the Cost Index as this remains the most fair and economic manner of ensuring that year-to-year cost variations to taxi drivers are taken in consideration.

1.3.2 Changes to the Cost Index Model

While generally retaining the Cost Index model, removing the ‘Social Costs’ aspect as this was introduced to compensate drivers working late at night; this compensation is now achieved via the three tariff rates.

1.3.3 Amendments to the tariffs

Following a review of taxi fares and tariffs, Systra recommended making some amendments to the tariffs and these proposals are below.

• Increasing the minimum taxi fare (the flagfall) from £2.60 to £3.00 • Reducing Tariff 3 (22.00 to 05.00 every night) from the current rate of £3.96

per mile to £3.70 per mile, which is in line with Tariff 4. • Changing when the tariff rate for longer journeys starts (Tariff 4), from six

miles to 12 miles. This would make longer journeys less expensive and far more attractive to customers

1.3.4 Increasing the soiling charge

Increasing the soiling charge from £40 to £60 to better recompense drivers for lost time and the actual costs of (potentially deep) cleaning, but also act as a deterrent. A figure of £60 is in the range of penalty fare charges on public transport in London (£80, or £40 for early repayment).

1.3.5 Taximeter specification

Updating the taximeter specification to allow for the annual tariff update to be implemented remotely.

1.3.6 Setting fixed fares for booked taxi journeys

Throughout 2017/18, undertaking further research and analysis to explore the option of allowing more flexibility for taxi companies (e.g. Hailo, Gett & the Radio Circuits) when setting fixed fares for booked taxi journeys.

8

1.3.7 Explore fare options between London Heathrow Airport and central London

Throughout 2017/18, exploring with the trade options for fixed fares to London Heathrow Airport from central London and capped fares from London Heathrow Airport to central London.

9

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:

• To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond

• To understand the level of support or opposition for the proposals

• To understand any issues that might affect the proposals of which we were not previously aware

• To understand any concerns or objections including the possible impacts of the proposals on people with protected characteristics

• To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses we seek approval from the TfL Board to implement all or some of the proposals

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and seek approval from the TfL Board to implement these

• Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to seek approval to implement any changes at this stage

2.3 Who we consulted We consulted the taxi driver associations, taxi booking companies, taxi drivers, taximeter companies, London wide stakeholders, the general public, possible and existing taxi users, We also emailed Local Authorities, London Councils, passenger groups, MPs and GLA members

2.4 Dates and duration The consultation was open between 10 January and 19 February 2017.

10

2.5 What we asked A full list of the questions asked during the consultation can be found in Appendix B

2.6 Methods of responding Consultees could respond to the consultation via the consultation online portal, email or by letter using our freepost address.

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We used a variety of methods to promote the consultation, these are listed below.

2.7.1 Website

The consultation and supporting material was published online (https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tph/taxi-fare-and-tariff-review-2017)

2.7.2 Twitter

The consultation was promoted on our Twitter account (https://twitter.com/TfLTPH)

2.7.3 Emails

1,879 emails were sent out to stakeholders and members of the public

2.7.4 Press and media activity

The consultation has been included in the weekly email bulletins we send out

2.7.5 Meetings with stakeholders

Meetings with the main taxi stakeholders were held during the consultation

2.7.6 Other stakeholders

Information about the consultation was provided to the Knowledge of London schools, so as they could share this with people studying to become licensed taxi drivers, and to taxi drivers at the suburban forums held during the consultation period. Information about the consultation and how to respond was also displayed at the NSL vehicle inspection centres. More information is available in Appendix C.

11

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tph/taxi-fare-and-tariff-review-2017

https://twitter.com/TfLTPH

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses The analysis of this consultation was provided by Steer Davies Gleave.

12

3. About the respondents This section provides information about the consultation respondents, including how they heard about the consultation and in what capacity they responded e.g. as a taxi driver/taxi user/other.

3.1 Number of respondents The consultation elicited responses from 1,258 respondents.

Respondents Total %

Public responses 1,249 99.3%

Stakeholder responses 9 0.7%

Total 1,258 100.0%

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation 1,205 out of 1,258 respondents answered this question.

How respondents heard Total %

Social media 636 50.6%

Received an email from TfL 307 24.4%

Read about in the press 92 7.3%

Other 86 6.8%

Saw it on the TfL website 76 6.0%

Received a letter from TfL 8 0.6%

Not answered 53 4.2%

Total 1,258 100.0%

13

3.3 Methods of responding The majority of responses (98%) were received via the consultation website. The remainder were received via email.

Methods of responding Total %

Website 1,235 98.2%

Email 23 1.8%

Total 1,258 100.0%

3.4 Respondent type Respondents were asked to state which of the following respondent types best described them:

• An All London licensed taxi (black cab) driver • A Suburban licensed taxi (black cab) driver • A London taxi (black cab) user • A non-taxi user • A representative of an organisation • Other (please specify)

Where respondents stated “Other” and provided more information, this information was used to include them in one of the existing categories where possible.

Respondent type Website Email Total % A London licensed taxi (black cab) driver - All London taxi driver - Suburban taxi driver - Not specified

1,057 992 49 16

15

1,072

85.2%

A London taxi (black cab) user 129 - 129 10.3%

A non-taxi user 14 1 15 1.2%

A representative of an organisation 3 6 9 0.7%

Other 20 1 21 1.7%

Not answered 12 - 12 1.0%

Total 1,235 23 1,258 100.0%

14

4. Summary of all consultation responses We received 1,258 responses to the consultation. The consultation included eleven questions, eight of which had a closed response element and four of which had an open response element.

This chapter details the responses to the eight closed questions from those who responded via the website (1,235 respondents)4. A summary of these responses can be found in the table immediately below. Charts showing the split of responses by respondent type are also provided.

No. Question Yes No Don’t know

No opinion/

Not answered

1 Do you agree that the Cost Index remains the best method to calculate changes to taxi fares in London?

780 (63.2%)

197 (16.0%)

184 (14.9%)

74 (6.0%)

2 Do you agree that the Social Costs element of the Cost Index Calculation should be removed?

158 (12.8%)

666 (53.9%)

292 (23.6%)

119 (9.6%)

3

Do you agree with the proposals to change the taxi tariffs that have been packaged by increasing the minimum flagfall but offsetting this by changes to Tariffs 3 & 4?

252 (20.4%)

870 (70.4%)

75 (6.1%)

38 (3.1%)

4 Do you agree we should retain the fuel surcharge?

964 (78.1%)

108 (8.7%)

87 (7.0%)

76 (6.2%)

5 Do you agree we should increase the soiling charge to £60?

931 (75.4%)

207 (16.8%)

28 (2.3%)

69 (5.6%)

6 Do you agree we should update the taximeter specification to allow for tariff updates to be implemented remotely?

787 (63.7%)

262 (21.2%)

84 (6.8%)

102 (8.3%)

7

Do you agree with the concept that we should conduct further research on the possibility of greater flexibility in setting fixed fares for pre-bookings and fixed or capped fares for journeys to/from Heathrow Airport?

506 (41.0%)

619 (50.1%)

63 (5.1%)

47 (3.8%)

9 Do you have any comment about the possible impact of any of these proposals on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010?

93 (7.5%)

748 (60.6%)

126 (10.2%)

268 (21.7%)

4 Those who responded via email provided general comments and are therefore included in the analysis of open question number 10 (“Do you have any further comments”).

15

This chapter also details the responses to the four open questions, both from those who responded via the website and those who responded via email (1,258 respondents).

Code frames, which categorise and quantify responses, have been developed for each of the four open questions. To ensure consistency between individuals’ coding responses, the first 50 responses coded by each analyst have been checked and verified by the project manager. Random consistency checks were also undertaken on each of the codeframes throughout the coding process.

Summary tables of the codeframes are provided in this chapter, with full codeframes provided in Appendix E. In each of the summary tables, major themes are shown in the first column and comments associated with each theme (those with a high number of responses) are shown in the next column. For each theme and comment, the number of respondents and share of respondents who provided these comments is detailed. If a respondent made more than one comment, they are counted multiple times.

16

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1

4.1.1 Cost Index

We asked respondents to tell us whether they agree that the Cost Index remains the best method to calculate changes to taxi fares in London.

The chart below shows that nearly two thirds of respondents (63%) did agree that the Cost Index remains the best method of calculating changes to taxi fares. Suburban taxi drivers were slightly less likely to agree than All London taxi drivers.

Summary of responses to Question 1: Do you agree that the Cost Index remains the best method to calculate changes to taxi fares in London?

5% 6%13%

5%

33%

15%

50%

6%

15% 18% 16%14%

5%

8%

15%

15%20%

13%

19%

14%

33%

25%

17%

16%

64%55%

75%

60%71%

33%

55%

25%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- A

ll Lo

ndon

(n=9

92)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- S

ubur

ban*

(n=4

9)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- N

ot s

peci

fied*

(n=1

6)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

use

r(n

=129

)

Non

-tax

i use

r* (n

=14)

Repr

esen

tativ

e of

an

orga

nisa

tion*

(n=3

)

Oth

er*

(n=2

0)

Not

Ans

wer

ed*

(n=1

2)

All R

espo

nden

ts (n

=1,2

35)

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts

Respondent Type - (* denotes fewer than 50 respondents)

Yes

No

Not sure

No opinion / notanswered

17


4.2.1 Social Costs

We asked respondents to tell us whether they agree that the Social Costs element of the Cost Index Calculation should be removed.

The chart below shows that just over half of respondents (54%) did not agree that the Social Costs element should be removed. Suburban taxi drivers were less likely to disagree with the proposal than All London taxi drivers. Taxi users and non-taxi users were similar in their responses to this question, with almost two thirds of respondents from both groups disagreeing with the proposal.

Summary of responses to Question 2: Do you agree that the Social Costs element of the Cost Index Calculation should be removed?

9% 12% 13%5% 7%

33%20%

50%

10%

25%29%

6% 19% 14%

15%

17%

24%

54% 35% 81%57% 64%

60%

25%

54%

12%24%

18% 14%

67%

5% 8% 13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- A

ll Lo

ndon

(n=9

92)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- S

ubur

ban*

(n=4

9)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- N

ot s

peci

fied*

(n=1

6)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

use

r(n

=129

)

Non

-tax

i use

r* (n

=14)

Repr

esen

tativ

e of

an

orga

nisa

tion*

(n=3

)

Oth

er*

(n=2

0)

Not

Ans

wer

ed*

(n=1

2)

All R

espo

nden

ts (n

=1,2

35)

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts


Yes

No

Not sure

No opinion/notanswered

18


4.3.1 Package of tariff changes

We asked respondents to tell us whether they agree with the proposals to change the taxi tariffs, including the changes to Tariffs 3 and 4 and increasing the minimum fare.

The chart below shows that just over two thirds of respondents (70%) did not agree with the package of tariff changes. Responses from suburban taxi drivers, All London taxi drivers, taxi drivers who didn’t specify their licence type and taxi users broadly concurred on this question, with roughly two thirds of respondents from all groups disagreeing with the proposal. Two of the three stakeholders agreed with the package of tariff changes.

Summary of responses to Question 3: Do you agree with the proposals to change the taxi tariffs that have been packaged by increasing the minimum flagfall but offsetting this by changes to Tariffs 3 & 4?

2% 4%13%

3% 7%

33%20%

42%

3%6% 6% 9%

21%

8%

6%

73%61%

69% 66%43%

50%

33%

70%

19%29%

19% 22%29%

67%

30%17% 20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- A

ll Lo

ndon

(n=9

92)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- S

ubur

ban*

(n=4

9)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- N

ot s

peci

fied*

(n=1

6)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

use

r(n

=129

)

Non

-tax

i use

r* (n

=14)

Repr

esen

tativ

e of

an

orga

nisa

tion*

(n=3

)

Oth

er*

(n=2

0)

Not

Ans

wer

ed*

(n=1

2)

All R

espo

nden

ts (n

=1,2

35)

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts


Yes

No

Not sure


19

4.3.2 Issues commonly raised (open question analysis)

Of the 1,258 people who responded to the consultation, 753 (60%) provided a comment in the open text box underneath question 3. Respondents were asked to state which of the proposals associated with the package of tariff changes they did not agree with and why. The table below provides a summary of the responses to this question. A detailed breakdown of all themes and comments is available in Appendix E.

Theme Comments Number of respondents

% of respondents

Disagree With reduction to Tariff 3 With increase in minimum fare/flagfall With changes to Tariff 4 Increase to minimum fare/flagfall will make taxis seem more expensive to customers Changes will reduce drivers’ earnings Current Tariffs 3/4 fair for unsociable hours Congestion is cause of higher fares Tariffs 3 and 4 needed to ensure drivers will work nights

693

490 375 331 111

95

84

70 59

55.1%

39.0% 29.8% 26.3% 8.8%

7.6%

6.7%

5.6% 4.7%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion

Fares need to rise in line with the cost of taxis

115

54

9.1%

4.3%

Other Suggestion Sort out road congestion

82

36

6.5%

2.9% Agree

With increase in minimum fare/flagfall With reduction to Tariff 3 With changes to Tariff 4

46

25 22 21

3.7%

2.0% 1.7% 1.7%

Not Answered 505 40.1%

Disagree

The majority of comments highlighted the elements of the proposal that respondents’ disagreed with. More than half of respondents included statements disagreeing with the proposals in contrast to only 4% of respondents stating any agreement.

The most commonly cited element was the changes proposed to Tariff 3, noted by 39% of those who responded. There were also high numbers of respondents opposed to increases in the flagfall (30%) and changes to Tariff 4 (26%).

20

One of the more commonly stated reasons for opposing one or more of these proposals was that it would reduce drivers’ earnings, suggested by 7.6% of respondents. Many explained this belief was because an increase in flagfall would not be adequate compensation for the proposed amendments to Tariff 3 and 4. In addition, many believed that increasing the flagfall would make taxis seem more expensive to customers (9%) as many do not understand the Tariff system and would be unaware of the price reductions elsewhere. There was also the suggestion that an increased flagfall would be picked up by the media, potentially leading to a reduction in demand for taxis.

Another point of view shared by roughly 6% of respondents was that they disagreed with some or all of the proposals as the congestion in London is the cause of higher fares for taxis. Many suggested that this was increasing costs and reducing demand and therefore they should not be unfairly penalised by having their fares adjusted.

5% of respondents, including taxi drivers who work predominantly at night and during the day, as well as customers, aired their concerns that a reduction in Tariff 3 would lead to fewer drivers willing to work at night. There was a worry that this would result in reduced safety for passengers waiting for taxis as taxi drivers expect higher earnings for working unsociable hours.


The most common suggestion, proposed by 4% of respondents, was that fares need to keep up with the rising costs that taxi drivers face. Many demonstrated their point by mentioning the increased costs they are facing from credit card charges, maintenance costs and most of all, the cost of new Zero Emission Capable vehicles that are being introduced next year. Many taxi drivers responded that they would be unable to afford the new vehicles.

1.5% of respondents suggested abolishing Tariff 3, in the most part to increase demand for their services.

Other Suggestion

6.5% of respondents made a suggestion not directly related to tariffs or fares. The most common proposals were recommending that TfL tackle road congestion (3%) and that they impose stricter regulations on the private hire industry (2%). Many of these were by the same respondents as several people stated that there are too many private hire vehicles on the roads. Other causes of congestion mentioned were Cycle Superhighways and buses.

21


4.4.1 Fuel surcharge

We asked respondents to tell us whether they agree with our suggestion of retaining the fuel surcharge.

The chart below shows that more than three quarters of respondents (78%) agreed with retaining the fuel surcharge. Taxi drivers were more likely to agree with this proposal than taxi users.

Summary of responses to Question 4: Do you agree we should retain the fuel surcharge?

5% 10%19%

4% 7%20%

42%

6%7%

6%6%

14% 33%

8%

7%6%

10%13% 27% 7%

33%

15%

33%

9%

82%73% 69%

63%71%

33%

65%

17%

78%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- A

ll Lo

ndon

(n=9

92)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- S

ubur

ban*

(n=4

9)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- N

ot s

peci

fied*

(n=1

6)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

use

r(n

=129

)

Non

-tax

i use

r* (n

=14)

Repr

esen

tativ

e of

an

orga

nisa

tion*

(n=3

)

Oth

er*

(n=2

0)

Not

Ans

wer

ed*

(n=1

2)

All R

espo

nden

ts (n

=1,2

35)

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts


Yes

No

Not sure


22


4.5.1 Soiling charge

We asked respondents to tell us whether they agree with the proposal to increase the soiling charge from £40 to £60.

The chart below shows that three quarters of respondents (75%) agreed with the proposed increase to the soiling charge. Taxi drivers, taxi users and non-taxi users were broadly in agreement on this question with upwards of approximately two thirds of respondents in each group agreeing with the proposed increase.

Summary of responses to Question 5: Do you agree we should increase the soiling charge to £60?

5% 8% 13%4% 7%

33%

10%

42%

6%2%

2%5%

14%

2%

16%20%

25%22% 20%

25%

17%

77%69%

63%69%

79%67% 70%

33%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- A

ll Lo

ndon

(n=9

92)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- S

ubur

ban*

(n=4

9)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- N

ot s

peci

fied*

(n=1

6)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

use

r(n

=129

)

Non

-tax

i use

r* (n

=14)

Repr

esen

tativ

e of

an

orga

nisa

tion*

(n=3

)

Oth

er*

(n=2

0)

Not

Ans

wer

ed*

(n=1

2)

All R

espo

nden

ts (n

=1,2

35)

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts


Yes

No

Not sure


23


4.6.1 Taximeter specification update

We asked respondents to tell us whether they agree that we should update the taximeter specification to allow for tariff updates to be implemented remotely.

The chart below shows that just under two thirds of respondents (64%) agreed with the proposed update to the taximeter specification. Suburban taxi drivers were marginally more likely to agree with this proposal than All London drivers.

Summary of responses to Question 6: Do you agree we should update the taximeter specification to allow for tariff updates to be implemented remotely?

7% 6%15%

7%

33%25%

50%

8%6% 2% 13%

11% 21%

10%

7%

21%18%

44% 22% 21%20%

8%

21%

66%73%

44%53% 50%

67%

45% 42%

64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- A

ll Lo

ndon

(n=9

92)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- S

ubur

ban*

(n=4

9)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- N

ot s

peci

fied*

(n=1

6)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

use

r(n

=129

)

Non

-tax

i use

r* (n

=14)

Repr

esen

tativ

e of

an

orga

nisa

tion*

(n=3

)

Oth

er*

(n=2

0)

Not

Ans

wer

ed*

(n=1

2)

All R

espo

nden

ts (n

=1,2

35)

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts


Yes

No

Not sure


24


4.7.1 Further research on fixed fares, including to/from Heathrow airport

We asked respondents to tell us whether they agree with the concept that we should conduct further research on the possibility of greater flexibility in setting fixed fares for pre-bookings and fixed or capped fares for journeys to/from Heathrow Airport.

The chart below shows that half of respondents disagreed that further research should be conducted into setting fixed fares. Aside from suburban taxi drivers, stakeholders and those who did not reveal their respondent type, a higher proportion of respondents disagreed with this proposal than agreed with it across the respondent groups.

Summary of responses to Question 7: Do you agree with the concept that we should conduct further research on the possibility of greater flexibility in setting fixed fares for pre-bookings and fixed or capped fares for journeys to/from Heathrow Airport?

3% 8% 6% 3%15%

42%

4%5%

6% 6% 9%7%

8%

5%

51% 41%56%

49% 57% 45%

8%

50%

41% 45%31%

40% 36%

100%

40% 42% 41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- A

ll Lo

ndon

(n=9

92)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- S

ubur

ban*

(n=4

9)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- N

ot s

peci

fied*

(n=1

6)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

use

r(n

=129

)

Non

-tax

i use

r* (n

=14)

Repr

esen

tativ

e of

an

orga

nisa

tion*

(n=3

)

Oth

er*

(n=2

0)

Not

Ans

wer

ed*

(n=1

2)

All R

espo

nden

ts (n

=1,2

35)

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts


Yes

No

Not sure


25


4.8.1 General disagreement with proposals

In this open text question, we asked respondents to tell us which of our proposals they did not agree with, why they did not agree and for any alternative suggestions they may have.

Of the 1,258 people who responded to the consultation, 491 (39.0%) provided a response in the open text box. The table below provides a summary of these responses. A detailed breakdown of all themes and comments is available in Appendix E.


% of respondents

Fixed Fares Disagree – not possible/practical due to congestion in London Disagree – no further comment Disagree – a passenger and a driver can already come to an agreement over the price of a journey, therefore no need to implement fares

320

93

80 72

25.4%

7.4%

6.4% 5.7%


Keep tariffs and minimum fare/flagfall as they are i.e. maintain the status quo

101

51

8.0%

4.1%

Other Suggestion Tackle congestion

96

28

7.6%

2.2% Not Answered 767 61.0%

Fixed Fares

A quarter of respondents commented on fixed fares with the largest share (93 respondents) mentioning their impracticality due to the congestion in London. 6.4% of respondents disagreed with fixed fares but provided no additional comment. The next most popular response, given by around 6% of respondents, was that there is no need for fixed fares as drivers and passengers are already able to negotiate a fare between them.

In addition to these responses there were a wide range of other comments in relation to fixed fares. The majority of these were in disagreement with their implementation, although there were several people agreeing with fixed fares to airports or on certain longer journeys.

26

Reasons that respondents provided for disagreeing with fixed fares involved maintaining their status as taxi drivers: 39 people stated that as taxi drivers, they have the right to work to a meter, 13 people perceived fixed fares as turning taxis into minicabs and 6 people believed that trade organisations should set fixed fares instead of TfL.

They were also comments related to the costs faced by taxi drivers. 23 respondents stated that fixed fares are unfeasible with the current level of maintenance and running costs and a further 23 people expressed a similar concern but over the costs of vehicles. 21 respondents disagreed with fixed fares as they believed it would negatively affect drivers’ wages.


8% of respondents provided a taxi/fare suggestion. The most common response in this theme, provided by around 4% of respondents, was that the tariffs and minimum flagfall should remain as they are now. 14 respondents opposed any reduction in fares and a further 13 respondents proposed abolishing Tariffs 3 and 4, but keeping Tariffs 1 and 2.

Other Suggestion

Approximately 8% of respondents made other suggestions that were not captured by any of the other themes. The most common of these was to tackle congestion, recommended by 28 respondents. There were further proposals related to this including 14 respondents suggesting fewer private hire vehicles should be allowed on the roads.

27


4.9.1 Equality Act 2010

We asked respondents to tell us whether they have any comments about the possible impact of any of the consultation’s proposals on people with protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity) under the Equality Act 2010.

The graph below shows that almost two thirds of respondents (61%) stated that they did not have anything to say about the impact of any of the consultation’s proposals on people with protected characteristics. Aside from stakeholders, taxi users were the most likely to state that they did have something to say on this topic.

Summary of responses to Question 9: Do you have any comment about the possible impact of any of these proposals on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010?

22%14%

25% 23%

7%

25%

42%

22%

11%

6%

6% 7%

21%

10%

8%

10%

61%71%

63%53%

64%

67%

60%

50%

61%

6% 8% 6%17%

7%

33%

5% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- A

ll Lo

ndon

(n=9

92)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- S

ubur

ban*

(n=4

9)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

driv

er- N

ot s

peci

fied*

(n=1

6)

A Lo

ndon

lice

nsed

taxi

use

r(n

=129

)

Non

-tax

i use

r* (n

=14)

Repr

esen

tativ

e of

an

orga

nisa

tion*

(n=3

)

Oth

er*

(n=2

0)

Not

Ans

wer

ed*

(n=1

2)

All R

espo

nden

ts (n

=1,2

35)

Prop

ortio

n of

resp

onde

nts


Yes

No

Not sure


28

4.9.2 Issues commonly raised (open question analysis)

Of the 1,258 people who responded to the consultation, 114 (9%) provided a comment in the open text box underneath question 9. The table below provides a summary of the responses. A detailed breakdown of all themes and comments is available in Appendix E.


% of respondents

Other Comments Other comment Questions how proposals have an impact on protected characteristics

46

17 16

3.7%

1.4% 1.3%

Disability Changes will have detrimental effect on taxi industry, which will ultimately affect disabled passengers who rely on wheelchair accessibility requirement of taxis

38

35

3.0%

2.8%

Other Impacts If taxi trade/service declines then all passengers will be affected (negatively)

20

8

1.6%

0.6%

Not Answered 1,144 90.9%

Other Comments

Approximately 4% of respondents who provided comments to this question did not directly discuss the impact of the proposals on those with protected characteristics. A handful of respondents (around 1%) questioned how the proposals would have an impact on those with protected characteristics.

Disability

It was noted by 3% of respondents that disabled passengers could be affected by the introduction of the proposals, in particular those who use wheelchairs. Many respondents highlighted that taxis have to be wheelchair accessible, whilst private hire vehicles do not.

Other Impacts

Just under 2% of respondents discussed other impacts and primarily in a broad sense i.e. if the taxi trade/service declines, then all passengers will be disadvantaged.

29


4.10.1 Further comments

In this open text question, we asked respondents to provide us with any further comments on the consultation’s proposals.

Of the 1,258 people who responded to the consultation, 466 (37%) provided a response in the open text box. The table below provides a summary of these responses. A detailed breakdown of all themes and comments is available in Appendix E.


% of respondents

Other Suggestion Regulate the private hire industry more strictly Costs of buying and maintaining taxis should be considered in the consultation

192

87

40

15.5%

7.0%

3.2%

Other Comments Congestion is a key problem/reason that taxi fares are high Implication of TfL corruption/vested interests PH app companies causing taxis to compete with public transport

187

81

48

29

15.1%

6.6%

3.9%

2.3%


Leave the tariff structure alone

122

57

9.9%

4.6% Consultation Process

Objection to anyone other than taxi drivers having a say on taxi fares

75

51

6.1%

4.1%


Other Suggestion

This theme comprised the highest number of responses to Question 10 (15.5% of respondents). 87 individuals cited a stricter regulation of the private hire industry was required, and 40 respondents suggested that, as part of the consultation, TfL should have considered the financial implications for taxi drivers in purchasing and maintaining a taxi vehicle. Other comments made under this theme included the suggestion that TfL should promote the taxi trade more (29 respondents), and that London’s taxi trade warrants premium costs due to the high quality service customers receive (21 respondents).

30

Other Comments

Several of the respondents (187 individuals) that answered Question 10 provided other comments on the proposals, unrelated to the other themes outlined in the table above. 43% of these individuals claimed congestion is the key factor in generating high taxi fares within London, and 26% of the 187 individuals stated that the proposals have emerged due to TfL corruption and/or vested interests in the wider taxi and private hire industry. Other key comments included the notion that private hire app companies are causing taxis to compete with public transport (29 respondents), and concern that the standards for the taxi industry are deteriorating (25 respondents).


Nearly 10% of the respondents to Question 10 made a suggestion related to taxi tariffs/fares. 47% of the respondents under this theme stated they would like the existing taxi tariff structure left how it is with no implementation of the proposals. 20 respondents under this theme commented that reducing Tariffs 3 and/or 4 will cause a loss of income to taxi drivers, whilst 10 respondents indicated taxi fares should reflect the hours covered by Tariff 3 (22:00 – 05:00 daily) and distances covered by Tariff 4 (longer journeys).

Consultation Process

The majority of the 75 respondents whose comments related to this theme objected to any individuals other than taxi drivers being able to voice their opinion on taxi fares (51 respondents). 17 respondents stated that the TfL consultation was a waste of time, either due to bias or other reasons. Seven respondents commented that the Systra report was inadequate for use in the consultation process due to the data/sample size presented.

31

4.11 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders via email. We sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Local authorities and statutory bodies

Brent Council

Brent Council would like TfL to maintain the Cost Index method of calculating changes to taxi fares and disagree with the removal of the social costs element of the calculation if it results in a reduction in drivers’ incomes. They disagree with an increase in the minimum flagfall due to the disproportionate impact on disabled and older residents. As the overall package of changes to the minimum flagfall and Tariffs 3/4 will largely benefit those travelling longer distances at night, Brent Council disagrees with the changes proposed. They agree with retaining the fuel surcharge but would support a flat rate discount for when fuel prices are low. Brent Council supports a taximeter update if it results in savings that can be passed onto users. The Council supports the principle of capped fares and further research into this area, though would need further information on geographic boundaries, how the information would be communicated to passengers and clarification on the flexibility that taxi companies will be allowed. In addition, they support further expansion of capped fares to additional ports of entry such as Gatwick Airport or St Pancras International. The Council note that the impact of raising the minimum flagfall should be considered under the Equality Act 2010 as those who have a disability, or for other reasons such as age or pregnancy and maternity, may need to travel by taxi for shorter distances and this proposal would have a detrimental impact on them.

Government departments, parliamentary bodies & politicians

Justine Greening – MP for Putney, Roehampton and Southfields

Justine Greening MP supports the proposals as she determines that they go some way to meeting the needs of travellers in London while maintaining the competitiveness of the taxi trade and ensuring adequate financial reward for London taxi drivers. However, she also supports further work being done to look at pricing structures and value for money, in addition to a continued dialogue with taxi drivers.

32

Transport and road user groups

Gett

Gett supports all of the proposals for Tariff changes with the rationale that they reflect and address the public’s perception that longer taxi journeys are disproportionately expensive. Gett state that their own research demonstrates a reduction in longer journeys over the past four years but that when fares are fixed or discounted, on medium and longer journeys, the number of trips taken grows rapidly. They suggest that for taxi journeys where an app is used to get the taxi, there should be no obligation to have the meter running since this can be a confusing experience for the customer i.e. having a fixed fare provided in advance but seeing a different fare in the vehicle. Gett state that the introduction of the electric taxis from next year will have a significant impact on the operating model for the industry. They suggest that the Tariff structure is reviewed carefully in order to reflect the impact that the new vehicles will have. The topic of congestion is also raised with Gett stating that addressing this issue is key, both to helping taxis win more business and reducing the amount of stationary time that customers have to pay for. Finally, they recommend regular reviews of any new fares to ensure they are working well.

London Suburban Taxi-Drivers’ Coalition

London Suburban Taxi-Drivers’ Coalition (LSTC) state that for TfL to contemplate reducing the fares for London taxis, they would have to scrap the Cost Index as it is this that determines what the base rate should be for the taxi proprietor/driver to make a profit. LSTC suggest that, in order to reduce costs for taxi proprietors/drivers, TfL should look into a reduction in licence fees and attempt to negotiate the price of vehicles with manufacturers.

LSTC are in favour of increasing the soiling to charge to £80, or more, in order to fully compensate drivers for the time taken out of work to get their vehicle cleaned. They are also in favour of extending the distance when the tariff rate for longer journeys applies: from six miles to between 10 and 12 miles, in order to make longer taxi journeys more attractive. They disagree, however, with an increase in the minimum flagfall as they deem that this would make suburban drivers less competitive when compared with private hire vehicles. LSTC question whether this is a good time to be making rate/tariff changes when the new electric vehicles, with higher upfront costs, are due to be introduced next year.

LSTC disagree with allowing the radio companies to set cheap fixed price fares as they believe this undermines the taximeter system and confuses customers. Furthermore, they note that offering cheap fares from suburban areas will encourage All London drivers to complete those fares (a cheap fare is attractive to an All London driver who would otherwise be returning to central London with an empty taxi), thereby taking work away from suburban drivers.

33

LSTC express disappointment at being excluded from tariff negotiations meetings. They go on to say that they believe that increases in taxi fares are due to the increased road congestion caused by TfL and that the public will always perceive the cost of taxis to be too high because they do not have an appreciation of the running costs associated with taxis.

Taxiworld

Taxiworld’s primary concerns are around the suggested alterations to the taximeter testing specifications, specifically the inclusion of ISO17020 A.15, in addition to the current ISO170256 standard. They have concerns about BSI and the National Measurement and Regulation Office (NMRO) being involved in the production and verification of meters since Taxiworld perceive that they would be unable to provide the level of impartiality required for testing the meters. Taxiworld believe that this could lead to a decrease in the number of meter testing labs in London and that this would lead to reduced competition, an increased risk of a ‘single point of failure’ and increased prices for testing meters.

United Taxi Trade Response

This response was provided to the consultation on behalf of Unite the Union; Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association; London Cab Drivers Club; The Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Union; United Cabbies Group; and Heathrow Airport Taxi Drivers United. All six groups are in agreement with the response.

The group’s primary view is that the suggested tariff changes should be rejected at this time. They believe that the Systra report is not accurate and does not contain sufficient evidence to support the changes that are being proposed. The group suggests that the tariff changes should be made in 2018, following publication of additional information on the costs of Zero Emissions Capable taxis.

The group proposes an alternative to the implementation of an increase to the average taxi fare, as determined by the Cost Index. This is as follows:

• No change to the minimum fare; • Tariffs 1 and 2 to increase by more than 2.8%; • The ‘all week’ fare to increase by 2.8%; • No changes to Tariffs 3 and 4; and • Fixed fares from Euston should be increased by 50 pence.

5 ISO/IEC 17020:2012 specifies requirements for the competence of bodies performing inspection and for the impartiality and consistency of their inspection activities. 6 ISO/IEC 17025:2005 specifies the general requirements for the competence to carry out tests and/or calibrations, including sampling. It covers testing and calibration performed using standard methods, non-standard methods, and laboratory-developed methods.

34

The group agrees with updating the taximeter specification, retaining the Cost Index methodology, including the social costs element, retaining the fuel surcharge, updating the taximeter specification and increasing the soiling charge to £60. Finally, the group believes that proposals for fixed fares should be subjected to a ballot amongst taxi drivers at Heathrow Airport.

4.12 Comments on the consultation 1,216 of those who responded via the website (98%) provided a response on the quality of the consultation and associated materials. The results of their perceptions of the consultation process are as follows:

• Very good: 5% • Good: 17% • Acceptable: 45% • Poor: 18% • Very poor: 12% • Not answered: 2%

35

5. Next steps Following a review of the consultation responses revised recommendations for changes to the taxi fares and tariffs were submitted to the TfL Board for consideration at its meeting on 29 March 2017. The Board was also asked to approve the changes to the taximeter specification.

36

Appendix A: Stakeholders we consulted All London boroughs All Greater London Assembly Members All London Members of Parliament All Home Counties Members of Parliament London TravelWatach 123 Send A and S Services A1 taxis Access in London Action on Hearing Loss Addison Lee Adelante Adelante Age UK Aquila Electronics Ascott Cab & Co (Digitax) Assistance Dogs UK Beesley Engineering British Bangladesh Minicab Drivers Association BSI Cab Card Services Cab:app Ltd CabCard Services Limited Cabvision Chauffeur and Executive Association City of London Police CMT UK Ltd Computer Cab Cricklewood Carriers – agent for Viking Meters David Day, vice chairman of LMPCA DfT Dial-a-Cab Digitax Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee ECV/KPM Edgware Cab Company Equality and Human Rights Commission Farepay Ltd Frazer Nash George Grekos Gett UK

37

GMB Guide Dogs Gurinder Dhillon, Director, Otto HAC Megameter Hailo Hale Taxi meters Heart of London Heathrow Airport Limited Heathrow Airport Taxi Drivers United Inclusion London Ingenico Institue of Licensing Institute of Professional Drivers and Chauffeurs iView iZettle Jacabs John Beasley, Chairman of LMPCA Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People Just Taxis Karsan KPM UK Licensed Private Hire Car Association Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Living Streets London Accessible Transport Alliance London Assembly Members London Cab Drivers Club London Chamber of Commerce and Industry London City Airport London Councils London Cycling Campaign London First London NHS bodies London Suburban Taxi Drivers Coalition Long Lane Cabs LTC M&O Mastercard Metropolitian Police Service National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers National Measurement and Regulation Office (NMRO) National Measurement and Regulation Office (NMRO) Neighbouring taxi & private hire licensing authorities Network Rail

38

New West End Company NMO Pay by Phone/Verrus Pay Cabs Payleven PayPal Penso PHV Board Pool Motors Putney Bridge Ltd Radio Taxis Rainham Road Taxis Richmond Road Cab Centre RMT RNIB Roads Task Force Members S&H Cabs Senior Traffic Commissioner Sherbet Sherbet Society of London Theatre Stephen Buckle Steve Laidler, Digitax Surrey Taxis Ltd Suzy Lampugh Trust Taxiworld TfL Youth Panel The Payment House Train Operating Companies serving London Transport Focus Transport for All UK Cards Association Unite the Union United Cabbies Group Verifone Verrus Viking (The London & General Motor Cab Company Limited) Visa Visit London Worshipful Company of Hackney Drivers Wright Cab Company

39

Appendix B: Consultation questions Taxi Fare and Tariff review 2017 consultation questionnaire 1 What is your name? 2 What is your email address? This is optional, but if you enter your email address then you will be able to return to edit your response at any time until you submit it. You will also receive an acknowledgement email when you complete the consultation. We will contact you to let you know when the results of the consultation are published and may use your details to update you on any future developments with the proposals. 3 Please provide us with your postcode? You do not have to provide your postcode, but it is useful for analysis purposes. All personal details will be kept confidential. 4 If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name: Please note: If you are responding on behalf of an organisation it should be in an official capacity. 5 How did you find out about this consultation? Please select only one item Received an email from TfL Received a letter from TfL Read about in the press Saw it on the TfL website Social media Other (please specify) 6 Are you responding as Please select only one item A London licensed taxi (black cab) driver A London licensed taxi (black cab) user A non-taxi user A representative of an organisation Other (please specify) 7 If you are responding as a London licensed taxi (black cab) driver, are you Please select only one item An All London driver A Suburban driver

40

8 How many years have you been licensed as a taxi driver? Please select only one item Less than 3 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years Over 20 years 9 Are you on a radio circuit (Computer Cab, Dial-a-Cab or Radio Taxis)? Please select only one item Yes No 10 Are you with a taxi app (e.g. Gett (Get Taxi), Hailo, etc.) Please select only one item Yes No 11 How many years have you been licensed as a taxi driver? Please select only one item Less than 3 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years Over 20 years 12 Are you on a radio circuit (Computer Cab, Dial-a-Cab or Radio Taxis) ? Please select only one item Yes No 13 Are you with a taxi app (e.g. Gett (Get Taxi), Hailo, etc.)? Yes No 14 As a taxi user, how often do you use taxis? Please select only one item Daily 2-3 times a week 3-4 times a month Once a month

41

Less often Don't know 15 Do you agree that the Cost Index remains the best method to calculate changes to taxi fares in London? Please select only one item Yes No Don't know No opinion 16 Do you agree that the Social Costs element of the Cost Index Calculation should be removed? Please select only one item Yes should be removed No should be retained Don’t know No opinion 17 Do you agree with the proposals to change the taxi tariffs that have been packaged by increasing the minimum flagfall but offsetting this by changes to Tariffs 3 & 4? Please select only one item Yes agree with proposals No do not agree with proposals (please specify which proposals you do not agree with and why) Don’t know No opinion Please specify here which proposals you do not agree with and why 18 Do you agree we should retain the fuel surcharge? Please select only one item Yes the current fuel surcharge arrangements should be retained No Don’t know No opinion 19 Do you agree we should increase the soiling charge to £60? Please select only one item Yes No Don't know No opinion

42

20 Do you agree we should update the taximeter specification to allow for tariff updates to be implemented remotely? Please select only one item Yes No Don't know No opinion 21 Do you agree with the concept that we should conduct further research on the possibility of greater flexibility in setting fixed fares for pre-bookings and fixed or capped fares for journeys to/from Heathrow Airport? Please select only one item Yes No Don't know No opinion 22 If you do not agree with some of our proposals please state which ones, why you do not agree with these and any alternative suggestions you have. Please leave comments here 23 Do you have any comment about the possible impact of any of these proposals on people with protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity) under the Equality Act 2010? Please select only one item Yes (please specify) No Don't know No opinion If yes please specify 24 Do you have any further comments? Further comments 25 What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)? Please select only one item Very good Good Acceptable Poor

43

Very poor Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?

44

Appendix C: Consultation notifications 9 January 2017: Emailed the main taxi stakeholders to advise them that the consultation would launch soon

10 January 2017: Emailed the main taxi stakeholders to advise them that the consultation was open

16 January 2017: Issued a TPH Notice about the consultation, this is on the TfL website here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/notices-and-consultations?intcmp=9127

45

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/notices-and-consultations?intcmp=9127

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/notices-and-consultations?intcmp=9127

Ongoing: Tweeting about the consultation from the TPH Twitter account

Copy of tweet that was sent out at various times during the consultation period

Ongoing: Included in the weekly TPH email bulletin

Copy of TPH Bulletin

Are our emails displaying well on your device? If not, allow images or view online

Home Plan journey Status update TPH

Here is your weekly taxi and private hire travel update. This email sets out changes and events that could affect your journeys, as well as essential licensing information. For more detailed information, please click here

Roads update

Central London From Saturday until late November there will be various restrictions in place while Cambridge Circus regeneration scheme works take place. From 08:00 on Saturday 21 January until 21:00 on Sunday 22 January, Charing Cross Road will be closed southbound between Denmark Street and Shaftesbury Avenue. For a list of closure dates and locations, please click here Wandsworth Until early March, there will be various lane restrictions in place in the area including on Wandsworth Plain, Armoury Way and Ram Street. This is due to utility collaboration works. West London

46

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/public/read_message.jsp?tsp=1484831702971&custid=6210&uid=6253666782&sig=DKFJEFJFPPJIAOEM&mid=601361134

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Ij

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Ik

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Il

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Im

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Ip

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Iq

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66In

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Io

Until late March, there are temporary traffic signals and lane restrictions in both directions on the A4 Cromwell Road, at the Ashburn Place junction. This to allow for cycle grid works. West London From 23:30 on Monday 23 January until late April, a contraflow and lane restrictions will be in place on Chelsea Embankment, from Chelsea Bridge to Embankment Gardens. This is due to utility and Thames Tideway works.

Events

City of London From 15:00 today, Thursday 19 January, extensive road closures will be in place in the area. This is due to a demonstration taking place at Bank junction. Additional demonstrations are due to take place from 15:00 tomorrow, Friday 20 January. Westminster From 12:00 until 17:00 on Saturday 21 January, road closures will be in place including on Grosvenor Square, Trafalgar Square, Park Lane, Hyde Park Corner, Piccadilly, Pall Mall and Pall Mall East. This is due to a march.

News update

Taxi owners: Keep your Vehicle Registration Certificate up to date If your taxi has had a full advertising body wrap, where the predominant colour of the vehicle has been changed, you must notify the DVLA by changing the main colour in section 7 of your V5C. More information can be found here Gatwick Airport: take your customers to the right terminal Three airlines are moving terminals.

• From today, BA2612 to Naples will operate to and from South Terminal

• From 24 January, all easyJet flights will depart from the North Terminal

• From 25 January all British Airways flights will depart from the South Terminal and all Virgin Atlantic

flights will depart from the North Terminal

More information from the airport is here Suburban Taxi Driver Forums – Sector 7 The forum for Sector 7 drivers will take place on Thursday 2 February. For more information about the 2016/17 suburban taxi driver forums, and to book your place, please click here

Consultations update

Taxi fares and the taximeter specification We are consulting on changes to taxi fares and tariffs and the taximeter specification. The consultation closes on Sunday 19 February and is available here Jermyn Street changes Westminster City Council are consulting on changes to Jermyn Street. The consultation closes on Friday 27 January and is available here Bond Street changes Westminster City Council are consulting on changes in and around Bond Street, which includes changes to the taxi ranks. The consultation closes on Friday 27 January and is available here Camden Town Consultation We are consulting on changes to Camden Town Underground Station. The consultation closes on Wednesday 8 February 2017 and is available here The Magical Lantern Festival The Magical Lantern Festival opens today, Thursday 19 January and runs until Sunday 26 February 2017. The Festival is held at Chiswick House and Gardens and is open between Thursday to Sunday each week

47

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Ir

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Is

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66It

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Iu

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Iv

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Iw

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Ix

from 17:00 to 22:00. Access to and from the event will be via the Dukes Avenue Gate on the A4 (westbound). Taxis will be able to drop off and pick up passengers at the Dukes Avenue Gate entrance on the A4. Details about the event can be found here For the latest updates please follow us on Twitter @TfLTPH

Yours sincerely,

Helen Chapman General Manager, London Taxi & Private Hire

These are our Taxi and Private Hire road travel updates. To unsubscribe, please click here

12 January and 2 February 2017: Drivers at the three suburban taxi driver forums were advised of the consultation and how to respond to this, the forums covered sectors 7, 8 and 9

Copy of information distributed at sector 7, 8 and 9 Suburban taxi driver forums

23 January 2017: Meeting held with stakeholders from the taxi driver associations and taxi booking companies to discuss the consultation

9 February 2017: Meeting held with stakeholders from the taxi driver associations to discuss the consultation

48

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Iy

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y197yI2vf9s66Iz

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/public/unsubscribe_CommercialDrivers.jsp?tsp=1484831702971&custid=6210&uid=6253666782&sig=DKFJEFJFPPJIAOEM&for_mid=601361134&mid=601361134&gid=600129854&[email protected]

Appendix E: Codeframes Q3: Do you agree with the proposals to change the taxi tariffs that have been packaged by increasing the minimum flagfall but offsetting this by changes to Tariffs 3 & 4? - Please specify here which proposals you do not agree with and why.

Theme Code No. of respondents (code)

Share of respondents

No. of respondents (theme)


Disagree 693 55.1% Disagree With reduction to Tariff 3 490 39.0% Disagree With increase in minimum fare/flagfall 375 29.8% Disagree With changes to Tariff 4 331 26.3%

Disagree Increase to minimum fare/flagfall will make taxis seem more expensive to customers 111 8.8%

Disagree Changes will reduce drivers’ earnings 95 7.6% Disagree Current Tariffs 3/4 fair for unsociable hours 84 6.7% Disagree Congestion is cause of higher fares 70 5.6% Disagree Tariffs 3 and 4 needed to ensure drivers will work nights 59 4.7% Disagree Can't compete with PH app companies 25 2.0% Disagree Reduced Tariff 3 won't be enough to increase custom 18 1.4%

Disagree Prices are fine, public have incorrect perception because of PH app companies 16 1.3%

Disagree Increase won't cover the cost of a new taxi 14 1.1% Disagree Penalises night drivers 14 1.1% Disagree Already have increased costs from credit cards 12 1.0% Disagree Would make many longer jobs unviable 12 1.0% Disagree Taxis are already competitively priced 11 0.9% Disagree Proposals penalise drivers doing only a few longer journeys 10 0.8%

Disagree Tariff 4 change will mean fewer drivers will take long journeys (won't be cost effective) 6 0.5%

Disagree Passengers taking longer journeys should be responsible for their cost 6 0.5%

Disagree Increase in minimum fare/flagfall not enough to compensate for credit cards and lower Tariff 3 6 0.5%

Disagree There will be no sustained publicity 6 0.5% Disagree Fares were just changed last year 5 0.4%

49





Disagree With fixed fares 5 0.4% Disagree Will alienate public 5 0.4%

Disagree With the boundary change of Tariff 4 from 6 miles to 12 miles (suggest 9 miles) 4 0.3%

Disagree Current fares are cheaper than PH 'surge' pricing 4 0.3% Disagree All other TfL transport fares rise each year 3 0.2% Disagree Discriminates against people taking short journeys 2 0.2% Agree 46 3.7% Agree With increase in minimum fare/flagfall 25 2.0% Agree With reduction to Tariff 3 22 1.7% Agree With changes to Tariff 4 21 1.7% Agree If passenger numbers increase as a result 1 0.1% Other Suggestion 82 6.5% Other Suggestion Sort out road congestion 36 2.9% Other Suggestion Regulate PH industry more strictly 28 2.2% Other Suggestion PHV companies should not be allowed to 'surge' price 7 0.6% Other Suggestion Offer subsidy for buying new electric/hybrid taxis 6 0.5%

Other Suggestion TfL to run positive marketing campaign to let public know all positive benefits of taxis e.g. all take credit cards / wheelchair accessibility

6 0.5%

Other Suggestion Be able to buy a wider choice of taxis 3 0.2% Other Suggestion TfL should not be in charge of the taxi trade 2 0.2% Other Suggestion Wait until we know the costs of new taxis 2 0.2% Other Suggestion No VAT on new taxis 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion 115 9.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Fares need to rise in line with costs of taxis 54 4.3% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Abolish Tariff 3 19 1.5% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Reduce minimum fare/flagfall 9 0.7% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Increase the minimum fare/flagfall further 6 0.5% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Abolish Tariff 4 6 0.5% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Reduce all tariffs 5 0.4% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Reduce Tariff 3 further to attract custom 3 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Reduce rate 4 slightly 3 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Have one flat rate all the time 3 0.2%

50





Tariff/Fare Suggestion Fares are too complicated 3 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Implement a minimum fare 2 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Increase rate 1 slightly 2 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Replace Tariff 1 with Tariff 2 2 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Tariff 3 only after midnight 2 0.2%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion There should be one rate at all times but £2.50 minimum during the day and £5 at night 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Tariff 4 should be reverted to previous state (only takes effect after meter exceed £16) 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Minimum fare/flagfall should be raised to compensate drivers for paying for credit card transactions 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Operate Tariff 2 all day and return extras to the meter at 40p per person 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Start rate 2 earlier and 3 could start after midnight 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Freeze taxi fares this year 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Slow down the time element of the meter and increase the distance element 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Increase price for extra passengers 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Increase minimum fare/flagfall to £2.80 on tariff 1 and 2 and £3.00 on tariff 3 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Night time Tariffs on reverse sliding scale: longer fares cheaper yet keeping smaller jobs the same price e.g. current Tariff 3 up to 2 miles, Tariff 2 from 2-6 miles then Tariff 1 after 6 miles

1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Fixed prices could help longer journeys 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Should be able to give cost of fare at start of journey 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Make shorter journeys more expensive with higher minimum charge and taper for longer journeys 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Have £10 minimum charge 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Have consistent pricing across PHVs and taxis 1 0.1% Other Comments 8 0.6% Other Comments There is no Tariff 4 5 0.4% Other Comments Do not agree with remote update to meter 2 0.2% Other Comments Agree with increased soiling charge 1 0.1% Consultation Process 21 1.7% Consultation Process Do not ask the public what they think 12 1.0%

51





Consultation Process Taxi app companies should not be involved in consultation 5 0.4% Consultation Process Not enough information to form opinion 4 0.3% Not Answered 505 40.1%

52

Q8: If you do not agree with some of our proposals please state which ones, why you do not agree with these and any alternative suggestions you have.





Fixed Fares 320 25.4% Fixed Fares Disagree - not possible/practical due to congestion in London 93 7.4% Fixed Fares Disagree - no further comment 80 6.4%

Fixed Fares Disagree - a passenger and a driver can already come to an agreement over the price of a journey, therefore no need to implement fixed fares

72 5.7%

Fixed Fares Disagree - taxi drivers have the right to work to a meter and shouldn't have to provide fixed fare options 39 3.1%

Fixed Fares Disagree - until manufacturers drop the price of a taxi (electric not specified), fixed fares unfeasible 23 1.8%

Fixed Fares Disagree - until maintenance and running costs fall, fixed fares unfeasible 23 1.8%

Fixed Fares Disagree - fixed fares affect drivers' wages 21 1.7% Fixed Fares Agree - with airport fixed fares but not short journeys 18 1.4% Fixed Fares Disagree - until taxi garages drop their service charges, fixed

fares unfeasible 17 1.4%

Fixed Fares Disagree - perceive fixed fares as attempt to turn taxis into minicabs 13 1.0%

Fixed Fares Disagree - will not work because PH app companies will undercut 9 0.7%

Fixed Fares Disagree - TfL should not set fixed fares, trade organisations should 6 0.5%

Fixed Fares Agree - no further comment 6 0.5% Fixed Fares PH companies should have a minimum and maximum charge -

they should not be allowed to surcharge 5 0.4%

Fixed Fares Ensure public know about fixed fares (including to airports) through general advertising/in-vehicle advertising 4 0.3%

Fixed Fares Agree - with airport fixed fares providing better waiting system implemented at rank/access granted to taxis on bus lane on motorway spur/compensation for delays

4 0.3%

Fixed Fares Disagree - pre-booked jobs are only of benefit to taxi app 3 0.2%

53





companies Fixed Fares Only charge fixed fares outside the central 'metropolitan' area 3 0.2% Fixed Fares Agree - with fixed fares over 12 miles 3 0.2% Fixed Fares Disagree - will not work because taxi app companies will

undercut 3 0.2% Fixed Fares Agree - with airport fixed fares 3 0.2% Fixed Fares Implement a fixed fare guide 2 0.2% Fixed Fares Disagree - with airport fixed fee 2 0.2% Fixed Fares Fixed fares should only apply to jobs over £50 1 0.1% Fixed Fares Disagree - fixed fares encourage unsafe driving (e.g. trying to

reach destination faster) 1 0.1% Fixed Fares Fixed fares should only apply to jobs over £15 1 0.1% Fixed Fares If apps or radio circuits want to offer fixed fares they should be

allowed to 1 0.1%

Fixed Fares Agree - providing undertaken through an account or on regular journeys 1 0.1%

Fixed Fares Agree - with fixed fares over 31 miles 1 0.1% Flagfall Changes 20 1.6%

Flagfall Changes Disagree - increase of minimum fare/flagfall gives passengers the perception of a large fare increase 11 0.9%

Flagfall Changes Disagree - no further comment 7 0.6% Flagfall Changes Agree - with increase in minimum fare/flagfall 3 0.2% Fuel Surcharge 1 0.1% Fuel Surcharge Disagree - taxi drivers should absorb it 1 0.1% Meter Updates 17 1.4%

Meter Updates Disagree - see no reason to have remote access to enable remote updates 11 0.9%

Meter Updates Disagree - fallible/could be vulnerable to unscrupulous behaviour 3 0.2% Meter Updates Disagree - meter should not be amended manually 1 0.1% Meter Updates Agree - no further comment 1 0.1% Meter Updates Meters can already be updated remotely 1 0.1% Other Suggestion 96 7.6% Other Suggestion Tackle congestion 28 2.2% Other Suggestion Regulate PH industry more strictly 26 2.1%

54





Other Suggestion Reduce PHV numbers 14 1.1% Other Suggestion It's not down to the public to decide how much they should pay 9 0.7% Other Suggestion TfL to fund a campaign to let the public know the night rate is

now lower to encourage use of taxis 4 0.3% Other Suggestion Reinstall bus lane on M4 4 0.3% Other Suggestion TfL should develop an app for taxis 3 0.2% Other Suggestion Remove fuel surcharge 3 0.2% Other Suggestion Take into account the cost of credit cards 3 0.2% Other Suggestion Keep the fuel surcharge 2 0.2% Other Suggestion Require congestion charge for PHVs 2 0.2% Other Suggestion Increase congestion charge 2 0.2% Other Suggestion Open all bus lanes to taxis 1 0.1% Other Suggestion Drivers should not have to pay VAT on fuel 1 0.1% Other Suggestion Ban private cars from central London 1 0.1% Other Suggestion Apply cap or discount for customers using taxis for return

journeys to/from airports 1 0.1% Other Suggestion Heavily tax larger vehicles in London 1 0.1% Other Suggestion Increase fee for PHV license 1 0.1% Other Suggestion Make PHV drivers take taxi driving test 1 0.1% Other Suggestion Regulate against surge pricing 1 0.1% Other Suggestion Those without access to technology are discriminated against

without option to hail on-street 1 0.1% Other Suggestion Passengers should incur the cost of the credit card handling fee 1 0.1% Soiling Charge 17 1.4% Soiling Charge Agree - soiling charge should by increased 8 0.6%

Soiling Charge Disagree - extracting this from a drunk/incapacitated passenger is very difficult, therefore increase unlikely to act as deterrent 6 0.5%

Soiling Charge Disagree - soiling charge should be at driver's discretion 2 0.2% Soiling Charge Disagree - do not change soiling charge 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Changes 24 1.9% Tariff/Fare Changes Disagree - with changes to Tariff 3 17 1.4% Tariff/Fare Changes Disagree - with changes to Tariff 4 5 0.4% Tariff/Fare Changes Agree - with reduced Tariff 3 2 0.2% Tariff/Fare Changes No mechanism for challenging applicability of the costs index or 1 0.1%

55





reviewing on a regular basis

Tariff/Fare Changes Disagree - adjusting short journey fares to offset longer fixed fares (e.g. to Heathrow) discriminates against lower wage users, who are more likely to take short trips

1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion 101 8.0%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Keep tariffs and minimum fare/flagfall as they are i.e. maintain the status quo 51 4.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Do not reduce fares 14 1.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Abolish Tariff 3/4, simply keep Tariff 1 and 2 13 1.0% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Agree with measures that will result in overall reduction in cost to

passengers 6 0.5%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Problem is not taxi fares, rather private hire fares being comparable to public transport 3 0.2%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Introduce capped fares not fixed fares 3 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Adjust night tariffs 2 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Keep Tariff 3 2 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Re-instate extras 2 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion A fair night rate would be above Tariff 2 but lower than the

current Tariff 3 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Reduce fares on short journeys 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Use Tariff 2 most of the time but Tariff 3 from 23:00 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Abolish Tariff 1 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Tariff 1 should not be charged after 12 miles 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Have separate tariff for airport journeys 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Introduce a minimum fair for private hire industry 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Disagree - with making short journeys more expensive 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Use Tariff 2 most of the time but Tariff 3 from 00:00 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Fixed fares to airports could be linked to Tariff levels (1,2 and 3) 1 0.1% Consultation Process 44 3.5%

Consultation Process Don't agree with outside organisations such as taxi app companies & circuits being involved in these consultations 31 2.5%

Consultation Process Unhappy with consultation process (small percentage of users/drivers represented / don't trust TfL) 7 0.6%

Consultation process Not up to TfL to make decision about these changes 3 0.2%

56





Consultation Process TfL are creating more regulations for taxi drivers without ending deregulation in the private hire industry 2 0.2%

Consultation Process Not all taxi drivers have access to this consultation 1 0.1% Other Comments 2 0.2% Other Comments Comment disapproving of PH app companies 1 0.1% Other Comments Comment disapproving of taxi app companies 1 0.1% Not Answered 767 61.0%

57

Q9: Do you have any comment about the possible impact of any of these proposals on people with protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity) under the Equality Act 2010? If yes, please specify.





Disability 38 3.0%

Disability Changes will have detrimental effect on taxi industry, which will ultimately affect disabled passengers who rely on wheelchair accessibility requirement of taxis

35 2.8%

Disability Unfair that TfL don't give wheelchair users any other option than taxis (private hire not required to provide for wheelchair accessibility)

2 0.2%

Disability Replacing roads with cycle superhighways makes it harder for taxis to pick up wheelchair users 1 0.1%

Drivers 12 1.0% Drivers Taxi drivers will suffer (reduced income) 11 0.9% Drivers Drivers will have to work longer hours - including older drivers 2 0.2% Other Impacts 20 1.6%

Other Impacts If taxi trade/service declines then all passengers will be affected (negatively) 8 0.6%

Other Impacts If taxi trade/service declines then vulnerable passengers (unspecified) will be affected 6 0.5%

Other Impacts Congestion affects everyone through higher fares 3 0.2% Other Impacts Keeping fares low has a positive impact on all 1 0.1% Other Impacts Perceives taxis as safest form of private travel for women 1 0.1% Other Impacts Changes will make taxis only accessible to the wealthy 1 0.1% Suggestion 2 0.2%

Suggestion Introduce a "wheelchair/blind /disabled" rate to enable cheaper travel for those who depend on taxis 1 0.1%

Suggestion Introduce a minimum fare for PH journeys (to protect taxi industry) 1 0.1%

Other Comments 46 3.7% Other Comments Other comment 17 1.4%

Other Comments Questions how proposals have impact on protected characteristics 16 1.3%

58

Other Comments Taxi drivers don't discriminate against passengers on the basis of any protected characteristics 13 1.0%


59

Q10: Do you have any further comments?





Fixed Fares 22 1.8% Fixed Fares Bring in fixed fares for airport trips 11 0.9% Fixed Fares Taxis need to be able to compete with minicabs on price 7 0.6%

Fixed Fares Fixed fares to Heathrow should be advertised on the exterior of the vehicle for easy viewing 3 0.2%

Fixed Fares Fixed price should only be available on jobs over £50 1 0.1%

Fixed Fares Each driver should have discretion to reduce the fare; it should not be law to have to take a set fare 1 0.1%

Fixed Fares Do not bring in fixed fares for airport trips 1 0.1% Fuel Surcharge 1 0.1% Fuel Surcharge Fuel surcharge should by retained 1 0.1% Meter Updates 2 0.2% Meter Updates Taxi meter updates are already being carried out remotely 2 0.2% Soiling Charge 4 0.3% Soiling Charge Support increase to soiling charge 3 0.2% Soiling Charge Soiling charge should remain as it is 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion 122 9.9% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Leave the tariff structure alone 57 4.6% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Reducing Tariffs 3 and/or 4 will cause drivers loss of income 20 1.6%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Hours and distances covered by Tariffs 3 and 4 are premium and charges should reflect this 10 0.8%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Reduce Tariffs 3 and 4 9 0.7% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Scrap Tariff 3 8 0.6% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Minimum fare/flagfall should be £5 6 0.5%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Tariff changes should be considered in relation to PH pricing / that of public transport modes 3 0.2%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Taxi fares are too high and therefore taxi travel is inaccessible for most 3 0.2%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Taxi fares can be cheaper than app companies when surge pricing has been taken into account 3 0.2%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Tariff 3 should operate between 12am-5am 3 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Tariffs 2 and 3 should be frozen for 2 years 2 0.2%

60





Tariff/Fare Suggestion 5am until 8pm: Tariff 1; and from 8pm until 5am: Tariff 2 2 0.2% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Have one flat-rate taxi Tariff 2 0.2%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Return to 3 Tariffs: Rate 1 for 5am to 10pm Rate 2 for 10pm to 5am Rate 3 for Bank Holidays and Sundays 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Cost per mile for Tariffs 2 and 3 are problematic 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Drop Tariff 3 to 2 on bank holidays 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Tariff 3 to start at midnight or abolished 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Scrap Tariff 1 and just have Tariff 2 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion The £4 extra charge over New Year should run from 10 pm 31/12 and finish 6 am 1/1 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Bank holidays should be Tariff 2 accept for Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Years Day which should stay at Tariff 3 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Fare should increase more rapidly on Tariff 1 than it currently does, and less rapidly on Tariff 3 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Reduce Tariff 3 by 25% 1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Increase in Tariffs 1 & 2, when the fare reaches a certain distance, should be scrapped i.e. keep the meter rate the same irrespective of distance

1 0.1%

Tariff/Fare Suggestion Scrap all Tariffs but Tariff 1 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Tariff 2 should start at 18:00 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Tariff 4 should be displayed clearly 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion Use Tariff 4 for bank holidays 1 0.1% Tariff/Fare Suggestion There should be no extra charges on bank holidays 1 0.1% Other Suggestion 192 15.5% Other Suggestion Regulate the private hire industry more strictly 87 7.0%

Other Suggestion Costs of buying and maintaining taxis should be considered in the consultation 40 3.2%

Other Suggestion Would like to see more promotion of the taxi trade by TfL 29 2.3%

Other Suggestion Reputation of/service provided by London taxis warrants premium costs 21 1.7%

Other Suggestion TfL should inform the public/advertise any changes to fares or tariffs 10 0.8%

Other Suggestion New taxis should run on LPG fuel / be electric 6 0.5% Other Suggestion Additional charge to customer for credit card payment 4 0.3% Other Suggestion PH and taxis should be managed separately as have different 4 0.3%

61





operations Other Suggestion Need enhanced security measures in taxis 3 0.2% Other Suggestion Taxi trade should be managed by Met Police rather than TfL 3 0.2% Other Suggestion Use smartphones as taximeters 2 0.2%

Other Suggestion Taxi drivers should be able to buy taximeters instead of renting them 2 0.2%

Other Suggestion Taxis should be able to use all bus lanes 2 0.2% Other Suggestion Reduce PHV numbers 2 0.2% Other Suggestion TfL should conduct a similar review of PH fares 1 0.1%

Other Suggestion Taxis should be allowed to use certain roads / junctions during roadworks 1 0.1%

Other Suggestion Tariff changes during the day to be monitored and adjusted remotely if required 1 0.1%

Consultation Process 75 6.1%

Consultation Process Objection to anyone other than taxi drivers having a say on taxi fares 51 4.1%

Consultation Process Waste of time / biased consultation 17 1.4% Consultation Process Systra report is inadequate 7 0.6%

Consultation Process TfL must increase awareness of when these consultations take place 4 0.3%

Consultation Process Some questions are not clear / confusing 2 0.2% Consultation Process Q23 (Equality Act) is irrelevant 1 0.1% Other Comments 187 15.1% Other Comments Congestion is key problem / reason that taxi fares are high 81 6.6% Other Comments Implication of TfL corruption/vested interests 48 3.9%

Other Comments PH app companies causing taxis to compete with public transport 29 2.3%

Other Comments Fear that standards are going down 25 2.0% Other Comments Comment disapproving of TfL 6 0.5% Other Comments Other comment 6 0.5% Other Comments Over-regulation of taxis will have negative effect on taxi trade 3 0.2%

Other Comments Proposals will affect the majority of taxi users by increasing fares for shorter journeys 1 0.1%

Other Comments TfL should develop an app for taxis 1 0.1%

62





Other Comments Taxi and PH markets are oversaturated 1 0.1% Other Comments Comment disapproving of taxi app companies 1 0.1%

Other Comments Ban should be enforced on vehicles that keep engine running whilst idling 1 0.1%

Other Comments Taxis are too expensive, especially when compared with minicabs 1 0.1%


63

Taxi Fares and Tariffs and Taximeter Specification …...• Additional surveys amongst taxi drivers...

Documents

Transcript of Taxi Fares and Tariffs and Taximeter Specification …...• Additional surveys amongst taxi drivers...