Taxi Regulatory Reform: March 2012 Green Paper.

Transport and Technical Services

Green Paper

Title of consultation: TAXI REGULATORY REFORM  Date 28 March 2012

Purpose and type of consultation To receive the views of the public, commerce and the public transport industry on proposal for the reform of taxi regulation

Closing date Thursday 28 June 2012

Summary

Transport and Technical Services (TTS) is reviewing the regulation of taxis. The report of the review is now available from www.statesassembly.gov.je . Various changes to improve the service provided are suggested in the report. We would like to know what you think about these suggestions.

Recent surveys have shown that not everyone understands the way that taxis work. So, the first thing is to explain the differences between the types of taxis operating in Jersey. The two main types of taxi licensed to operate in Jersey are controlled taxis and restricted taxis.

The numbers of taxis are determined by the Minister for TTS. There are currently about 150 controlled taxis and about 160 restricted taxis.

What are the issues?

Although the public is generally satisfied with vehicles and drivers, it is clear from surveys that there are issues to look at, the main ones are:

• The two-tier taxi system is not well understood
• Taxi pricing is not transparent
• Fares may not be predictable in advance
• Gaps in accessibility for disabled users
• Slow take-up of the latest communication and payment technologies

• Significant inefficiency when taxis travel empty or sit unused
• Not enough taxis available to cover the night-time economy peak demand, for short journeys in rural areas, for big one-off events
• Limiting the number of licences means that while entry into the industry is relatively straightforward, becoming a licence holder is a lengthy process – it currently takes around 5 years for a new entrant to get a Restricted Taxi licence and a further 12 years for a Controlled Taxi licence

What could the changes be?

The taxi review has come up with some proposals to improve the way taxis work. These are some of the suggestions:

Just one type of taxi

There could be only one type of taxi rather than the two types (Controlled and Restricted) we have at the moment. This would have the following advantages:

• It would be clearer for the public to understand how taxis work because there would be only one set of rules
• There would be only one set of maximum fare scales so people will have a better idea in advance of the most they should pay
• With only one type, taxis could be required to use a standard colour or common livery, making them easy to identify

Quality rather than Quantity control

There could be a move away from quantity control to quality control This means the TTS Minister would not necessarily limit the number of taxis. Instead there would be stronger rules about the condition of vehicles and the quality of service provided. This could include:

• Setting a maximum age limit for vehicles
• Making sure there are enough taxis with easy access for wheelchairs / buggies
• Requiring taxis to accept electronic payment (eg chip and pin card)
• Requiring taxis to automatically print a receipt if a passenger wants one
• Training drivers in passenger assistance and other relevant skills
• Setting environmental standards for taxis

Stronger Controls for taxi companies

Controls could be strengthened to:

• Ensure every company will pick-up / drop off anywhere in the Island
• Ensure they would provide taxis 24/7
• Ensure they would provide a particular type of vehicle, for example a wheelchair accessible vehicle, if this was requested

Maximum fares

Maximum fares for all taxis could be set by the TTS Minister. At the moment, the Minister sets the maximum fares for Controlled Taxis but not for Restricted Taxis. Each restricted taxi company sets its own fares and they must display these in the taxi.

If there was one single maximum fare level set for all taxis, there could be different fare bands which would be higher at certain times. This means that the fare could be higher after a set time in the evening, 11pm for example. In addition to fares, a small booking charge could be introduced for pre- booked taxis.

Other possible changes

• All taxi meters would be calibrated and checked by the States (or someone working on their behalf)
• Taxi drivers lose fares if they have to clean their taxis during a shift; to compensate them for this loss of income, a soiling charge' could be introduced ie if a passenger dirties a taxi, they should pay for it
• Formal taxi-sharing' could be introduced to cope with peak demands

Summary

The review has come forward with changes that will help customers by:

• Making the taxi system simpler and easier to understand
• Making fare levels easier to understand
• Improving the availability of taxis – in rural areas, at busy times, with accessibility for disabled people
• Improving the quality of taxi services

The focus of these proposals is the improvement of the service to the public. To do this we need the public's views.

Further information www.statesassembly.gov.je

Please send your comments to: Director of Transport

Transport and Technical Services Department South Hill

St Helier

JE4 8UY

How to contact us Telephone (0)1453 448690 Email transport@gov.je Fax (0)1534 445529

This consultation paper has been sent to the following individuals / organisations:

The Public Consultation Register

States' Members

Scrutiny

Public Transport Industry Companies and Representative Groups

Taxi and Cab Drivers

Interested Industry Groups

Community Groups

Other NGO's

Supporting documents attached Taxi Regulator Reform Report Jan 2012

Taxi Regulatory Reform

March 12 Final

Quality Assurance

Document Management

Copyright

The contents of this document are © copyright The TAS Partnership Limited, with the exceptions set out below. Reproduction in any form, in part or in whole, is expressly forbidden without the written consent of a Director of The TAS Partnership Limited.

Cartography derived from Ordnance Survey mapping is reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of HMSO under licence number WL6576 and is © Crown Copyright – all rights reserved.

Other Crown Copyright material, including census data and mapping, policy guidance and official reports, is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland under licence number C02W0002869.

The TAS Partnership Limited retains all right, title and interest, including copyright, in or to any of its trademarks, methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how including or arising out of this document, or used in connection with the preparation of this document. No licence under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

The TAS Partnership Limited regards the daily and hourly rates that are charged to clients and the terms of engagement under which any projects are undertaken, as trade secrets and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The TAS Partnership Limited often uses commercially or personally sensitive data provided under confidentiality agreements by third parties to inform projects and disclosure of this information could constitute an actionable breach of confidence. This detailed content is therefore likely to be exempt from disclosure under the Act.

Consequently, The TAS Partnership Limited will expect to be consulted before any content of this document is released under a Freedom of Information request.

Guildhall House

59-61 Guildhall Street Preston PR1 3NU Telephone: 01772 204988 Fax: 01772 562070

info@taspartnership.co.uk www.tas.uk.net

Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................5 1  Introduction and Objectives...........................................................13

1. Introduction......................................................................................13
2. Objectives.........................................................................................13
3. Our Approach....................................................................................14
4. Report Structure................................................................................14
5. Note about Terminology......................................................................15
6. History.............................................................................................15

2  Current Taxi Sector Regulation.......................................................17

1. Introduction......................................................................................17
2. Regulatory Framework........................................................................17
3. Types of Taxis ...................................................................................18
4. Driving a Taxi....................................................................................25
5. Fare Regulation .................................................................................26
6. Other Aspects of the Sector.................................................................27
7. Company Structure............................................................................31

3  Regulatory Principles ....................................................................33

1. Introduction......................................................................................33
2. Consumer Protection Issues.................................................................34
3. Safety – Vehicle Standards..................................................................35
4. Safety - Vehicle maintenance...............................................................36
5. Safety – Driving Standards..................................................................36
6. Safety – Driver Training......................................................................37
7. Safety – Driver Behaviour ...................................................................37
8. Safety – Driver Health........................................................................38
9. Safety – Personal Safety.....................................................................39
10. Safety – Evaluation of Benefits.............................................................40
11. Quality Issues ...................................................................................41
12. Information provision .........................................................................43

13. Fares................................................................................................44
14. Taxi-Sharing .....................................................................................44
15. Other Unconventional.........................................................................47
16. Other tier' issues...............................................................................48
17. Competition Issues.............................................................................49

4  Stakeholder Experience in Jersey....................................................53

1. Introduction......................................................................................53
2. The Market Research..........................................................................53
3. States' Sustainable Transport Policy Consultation ...................................58
4. Issues raised at 22nd March 2011 Workshop...........................................59
5. Accessibility ......................................................................................66

5  Challenges to the Current Position..................................................71

1. JCRA................................................................................................71
2. JCRA Position Paper............................................................................73
3. Taxi Drivers Association Response........................................................81

6  Experience Elsewhere ...................................................................83

1. UK Experience...................................................................................83
2. Ireland.............................................................................................85
3. France..............................................................................................86
4. The Netherlands ................................................................................87
5. Australia...........................................................................................88
6. USA .................................................................................................89

7  Development Issues .....................................................................91

1. Changes in demand............................................................................91
2. Sustainable Transport Policy................................................................92
3. Taxis' public transport role ..................................................................93
4. Taxis' role supporting statutory services................................................95

8  New Technology...........................................................................97

1. Potential for new technology................................................................97
2. Cashless Payment..............................................................................97
3. Receipt Printing .................................................................................99

4. Vehicle Tracking ................................................................................99
5. On-Line Booking ..............................................................................101
6. Other.............................................................................................104
7. Summary of Technology Potential.......................................................105

9  Conclusions and Recommendations............................................... 107

1. Conclusions.....................................................................................107
2. Recommendations............................................................................111

Appendix A: Taxi Market Research........................................................ 115

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1. In December 2010, the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA) published a position paper in respect of the regulation of taxis in Jersey. This stimulated research, debate and discussion during 2011 by the States, by the industry itself and by other interested parties, of competition issues as well as quality aspects of taxi provision. This included a specific Taxi Workshop in March 2011 that was attended by key officers and politicians involved with taxi regulation, as well as consumer research in off-peak and peak seasons.
2. To support this process, The TAS Partnership Ltd, a UK firm of passenger transport specialists, was commissioned by the States to provide technical advice and information on regulatory experience elsewhere. This is our report which covers a broad range of issues concerned with the future of taxis in Jersey, including the regulatory issues raised at the Taxi Workshop and which makes recommendations for the future regulation of taxis in Jersey.
3. Throughout the report, we have attempted to balance the needs of the customer (our priority) with those of the taxi industry. While the overall measure of success for taxi regulation should be the level of customer satisfaction achieved, high levels of customer satisfaction cannot be achieved and maintained without a robust, successful taxi industry to provide the service. Any changes proposed, therefore, need to be thought through carefully so that both during any transitional phase, and in the longer term there exists a strong, vibrant industry able to provide the high level of service customers require.

2. Current Position

1. The current situation on Jersey can be described as being both highly and conventionally regulated. The regulations which exist are generally well observed, and the taxi sector in Jersey in the main provides a reasonable level of service for those who wish to use it and provides this service at a reasonable price.
2. The principle of restricting the number of licences issued has, however, been challenged as likely to detract from consumer benefit. Moreover, there are concerns that the traditional approach to regulation will increasingly struggle to provide a taxi sector that is fit for the future.
3. There are specific concerns around the customer experience in a number of areas including perceived cost and widespread confusion around the two types of taxi (and the charges made), and the quality and accessibility standards of the vehicles being used. In addition, especially if the taxi industry is

considered as a part of the overall transport mix on the island, there are concerns around the availability and cost of using taxis for those living in rural areas outside the main settlements. It is also important to recognise the positive aspects of the current arrangements which, for example, allow spikes of demand at the airport and harbours to be met. It is important that these demand spikes continue to be catered for.

3. Regulatory Principles

3.1  In the report we examined the regulatory principles being used on Jersey, and compared these to those found elsewhere. There were a number of positive aspects to the current position on Jersey, particularly the clear view that taxis are public service vehicles, and as such it is fully justified for the state to set quality standards. The arguments around allowing the market the freedom to set fares as against regulating fares are rehearsed. It is our strong opinion that customers place a high value on transparency, that is knowing what they will pay for a journey at the point they decide to travel by taxi, or even earlier when they are deciding whether to travel by taxi or indeed whether to travel at all. This requirement for transparency strongly suggests a need to review and revise the current fare-setting arrangements on Jersey so that a maximum fare tariff applies across the board.

4. Stakeholder Experience

1. Consumer surveys to ascertain the stakeholder experience from the point of view of taxi customers were commissioned by Transport & Technical Services in 2010 and again in 2011. These underpinned the findings of customer confusion in relation to the differences between Controlled' and Restricted' taxis as well as identifying other gaps in customer awareness, notably who is responsible for complaints. Whilst most experience was positively rated, customer dissatisfaction is caused by gaps between expectations and what is delivered, notably:

• Predicted time of arrival v actual time

• Predicted cost v actual cost

In both cases, the variations were consistent and worked against the customer.

2. In addition, as regards advance booked journeys, it proved impossible to obtain a taxi at all for a number of journeys, and as regards use of the ranks, there were significant delays at an early morning peak at the Weighbridge, the main St. Helier rank.
3. The consensus from the Taxi Workshop was that change was required in order to simplify the current position, and to allow for new entrants into the market whilst introducing higher quality standards. New quality standards could include introducing a new single taxi brand for Jersey, and considering

introducing a taxi driver's uniform in order to promote and emphasise the high professional standards of the industry.

5. Challenges to The Current Position

5.1  We examined the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA)'s December 2010 position paper "Taxi Regulation in Jersey". Many of the points made in this position paper we agree with, and reinforce points already made about customer confusion. We also agree that the relatively high price of Restricted Taxis compared to Controlled Taxis suggests that quantity control in this sector is working against customers' interests. We have already noted above that there is a relationship between maintaining a healthy market where drivers/operators are able to make a reasonable living and the service which customers experience. Although we agree with the JCRA that the primary focus of regulation should be the customer, we also believe that regulations should be drawn up with due regard to the supply side, that is taxi owners and drivers, in order to ensure sustainability.

6. Experience Elsewhere

6.1  Comparisons are interesting between the way taxi regulation works in Jersey and elsewhere in the world. There are many different forms of taxi regulation, and these have produced a wide variety of outcomes. Whilst the implication of Jersey being a relatively small island cannot be ignored, there are nevertheless some lessons that can be learned from elsewhere. In general, simple restrictions on the number of taxis leads to shortages in supply, acting against consumer interests. In principle, therefore there should be provision to allow for sufficient taxis. Attempts by regulatory authorities to identify an appropriate level through survey or an equivalent process have proved generally unsatisfactory. However, allowing a 'free for all' results in a situation where standards are difficult to enforce. Many regimes have a single tier framework. However, the longstanding UK approach has been to have a two tier system with a core regulated group of taxis and a relatively unregulated private hire separate tier. This approach is far from problem free and is yet again under review at present. It is doubtful either that Jersey could revert to this model or that in any case it is feasible, given Jersey's geography and demography. A two-tier system certainly makes it difficult for the sector to present itself as an offer which customers understand, trust and rely on as part of the public transport sector.

7. Development Issues

1. The market for taxis is not static. On the one hand, it is clear that there is a correlation between demand and economic activity, including the tourist industry. However, it is worth noticing how taxi demand in the UK far outstripped other forms of public transport in the UK between 1975 and 2000 and became an important means of transport for lower income families. This  suggests that sector positioning and marketing can directly affect longer-term demand patterns.

2. Taxis have a role to play in improving Jersey's environmental sustainability. This can be achieved through technical improvements to the vehicles, to deployment of information and communications technology to reduce the proportion and amount of wasted mileage, and through substitution for more polluting private car journeys.
3. Taxis also have a role to play in ensuring that disabled people are not disadvantaged as regards their movement around the island. It is estimated that some 10,000 people in Jersey experience some loss of movement function. By providing a kerb to kerb service, taxis eliminate the walk journey (including carrying shopping or luggage) that can act as a barrier to journey- making. Whilst there are wheelchair accessible taxis within the fleets, current arrangements are inconsistent and lack strategy as regards the mix of vehicles required, the appropriate levels of care/support to be provided and the related training requirements. The States also need to consider how such use of taxis can be afforded by a group of people that includes many on low income.
4. This is just one example of the contribution taxis can make towards the island's overall public transport provision. As change is considered, the role of the taxi industry in relation to other forms of public transport should also be examined so as to stimulate the possibility of, for example, allowing and encouraging taxi-sharing or taxibuses within any new regulatory system.

8. New Technology

1. One area which requires particular attention is the use of new technology to the benefit of both customer and the taxi industry. The use of more advanced booking and communications systems used widely elsewhere (e.g. SMS and smartphone booking) not only provide a better offer to the public. They also have the potential to improve resource use and reduce dead-mileage.
2. Technological innovation is currently very rapid, making it difficult to predict exactly what paths will have proved sustainable in the next few years. Some is focused on improving operator systems, but examples are provided of smartphone apps that are designed to optimise the value of taxis to customers and it is possible to imagine more ways that this could be done in the future. This suggests strongly that the role of the States will be to foster rapid introduction of new technology but, as far as possible not to try to control it through detailed specification.

9. Conclusions

1. Reform of the current two-tier system is justified, but care needs to be taken to avoid perverse results from moving to a deregulated model. In particular, a

big bang' approach is not recommended. Instead a phased approach to change is required.

2. In general, quality control is to be preferred to quantity control as a means of extracting the most benefits for the consumer whilst allowing more open competition.
3. The conflicts that have arisen and the failure of previous reforms to provide a long lasting solution reflect real difficulties in balancing the interests of the consumers with those of the industry and a market approach with an interventionist one. There are no easy or guaranteed solutions to this challenge.

10. Recommendations

(These are reproduced in full)

1. Artificial barriers to access to the industry should be removed. In principle, Jersey should move towards a system where quantity control is replaced by quality control. Quality control aspects should include:

• Maximum fare tariff throughout the industry

• Improved accessibility and service for disabled people

• Compellability / guarantee to taxi users / compensation for delay

• A requirement to accept electronic payment systems throughout

• Requirement for clearer performance indicators and monitoring

• Common livery

• Improved driver training

• Reducing the environmental impact.

2. Whilst there is a strong case for removing the distinction between Controlled and Restricted Taxis, particularly as smartphone booking and payment arrangements develop, we are conscious that the big bang' entailed were this to be introduced at one go would be potentially disruptive and would lead to congestion and conflict. Consequently, it is recommended that a phased process is developed for moving towards a unitary licensing model, in conjunction with industry representatives. Inherent in a unitary licensing model would be the elimination of the distinction between individual plates and company plates.
3. The unitary tariff should allow for a booking fee' that is applicable to and that reflects the cost of journeys with a rural component.

4. A formal set of criteria should be adopted for licensing companies that offer remote taxi booking. This should include:

• Compellable minimum coverage

geography – whole island

time – 24/7

vehicle type – availability of accessible vehicles on request

• Record keeping – full, interrogatable booking records

• Information provision to customers

5. An improved two stage complaints and comments system should be introduced. This should go in the first place to the industry itself to resolve, with appeals going to TTS. Thus there is a specific requirement on the industry to establish a single responsible body, with proper resolution structures and penalties, for handling these issues in a way that will be fair and reasonable and thus resistant to legal challenge.
6. A working group should be established with the industry with a specific task and finish' remit to consider two issues:

• How to accelerate the introduction of new communications, information provision and payment technology

• How to develop a role for taxis in providing taxibus-type / shared taxi services in rural areas outside peak, integrated within the bus system and using common payment and concession systems.

7. The opportunity of the above changes should be accompanied by a general review of licensing processes to eliminate past ad hoc arrangements and provide for formal, challengeable criteria where possible. This also provides an opportunity for reconsideration of minor technical issues that have been raised during the review such as soiling' charges, criteria for taximeter calibration and testing, and so on.
8. The States should develop an access strategy within its Sustainable Transport Policy which specifically considers the needs of disabled people. This will enable the vehicle accessibility and driver training requirements mentioned above to be part of a coherent approach towards barrier-free movement including all forms of public transport and the walking environment. Within this, the States also need to consider how such use of taxis can be afforded by a group of people that includes many on low income.
9. Finally, there remains considerable potential in our view for the taxi industry in Jersey to grow, in line with UK experience and despite recent declines in economic and tourism activity. This could contribute significantly to achieving

the island's sustainable transport policy objectives. This will, however, require the industry to improve its collective organisation so that it can undertake common promotion where appropriate and the development of new initiatives such as taxi-sharing.

10. We believe that the proposed changes to the sector's regulatory system will provide improvements in the following fields:

• Economic – through improved efficiency and better consumer value

• Social – including improved provision for people in rural areas and those with a mobility difficulty

• Safety – on technical and behavioural grounds

• Environmental – with new technology reducing wasted mileage and reducing the environmental impact of the taxi fleet.

11. The above include significant changes for the industry. We underline the need to avoid perverse impacts and therefore the requirement for consultation on the principles set out within this document with the industry itself as well as with representatives of consumers and other stakeholders, including business, tourism, the Community Partnership and the Parishes.
12. Following this, and assuming that a need for change is determined, there should be an extended period of consultation concerning implementation. Amongst other issues to resolve, this will need to include:

• The speed at which the changes can be introduced and, particularly, the phasing so as to reduce any negative impacts on existing licence holders

• The way in which the requirement for compellability can be introduced to groups of individual licence holders through collective organisation as an alternative to company membership.

• An agreed method for calculating the booking fee' component and for any adjustments to the taxi tariff in future.

• Some of the technical standards such as livery and a dress code.

Introduction and Objectives  1

1. Introduction

1. In December 2010, the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority published a position paper in respect of the regulation of taxis in Jersey[1]. This has stimulated consideration by the States, by the industry itself and by other interested parties, both of the competition issues raised, but also of some quality aspects relating to taxi provision and the extent to which the industry is ready for the future.
2. In order to underpin these considerations with objective information about the current position, the Transport and Technical Services Department (TTS) commissioned some detailed surveys of experiences of users and would-be users of taxi services[2].
3. In addition, the Department wished to frame consideration by reference to regulatory, policy and industry experience elsewhere. Consequently, it commissioned passenger transport specialists The TAS Partnership Ltd to facilitate a full day's Taxi Workshop which was held in St. Helier on 22 March 2011, involving The Minister and Assistant Minister, officers from Transport & Technical Services responsible for transport policy, taxi regulation and monitoring, driver and vehicle standards, as well as the Director of Jersey Tourism.
4. This report covers the issues raised in that Workshop and in subsequent correspondence and provides recommendations for the future regulation of taxis in Jersey.

2. Objectives

1. The objective has been to review the current regulatory regime and to make recommendations for the future regulation of taxis in Jersey that will:

1. Ensure the ready availability of taxi services that are: Attractive and convenient touse

Reasonably priced

Safe to use

Accessible to all

Environmentally responsible

2. Stimulate investment and innovation in the taxi industry, including investment in staff employment and training, whilst maintaining an open and competitive market
3. Facilitate integration between taxis and other public transport modes so as to support modal shift

2. It was felt that these objectives would enable the Minister to continue to meet his obligations under the Motor Traffic (Jersey) Law 1935 to ensure that "there is an adequate, efficient and reasonably priced cab service available throughout Jersey at all times".
3. Moreover, these objectives are consistent with Jersey's Sustainable Transport Policy[3], in meeting both its general intention to promote more energy efficient transport as well as its specific requirement for a simplified, modern system of taxis playing a full role in the public transport mix.

3. Our Approach

1. In addition to facilitating the Workshop, we have:

1. Examined the regulatory experience in the UK, Ireland, various continental European countries and some states in the US and Australia
2. Specifically considered competition issues by reference to the JCRA report, reports by OECD[4] and UK Office of Fair Trading and to EU State Aid and Competition regulation[5]
3. Looked at the Taxi Research setting out the consumer experience in Jersey in line with consumer research in the UK
4. Considered views of the industry set out in the Jersey Taxi Drivers Association Report, March 2011, and in correspondence to TTS from the Jersey Cab Drivers Association.

2. This Report takes all the above into account.

4. Report Structure

1.4.1  The Report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 sets out the existing regulatory framework in Jersey

• Chapter 3 considers the principles that justify different forms of regulation

• Chapter 4 collates and summarises consumer research, considers the link to broader policy objectives and sets out the issues discussed in a Taxi Workshop earlier this year

• Chapter 5 examines the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority report and the different views proposed from within the industry

• Chapter 6 examines experience in the UK and elsewhere

• Chapter 7 raises some aspects of the changing future demand for transport

• Chapter 8 provides some illustrations of and thoughts about new technology', particularly related to the smartphone revolution.

• Chapter 9 provides conclusions and recommendations.

5. Note about Terminology

1. The legislation relating to the taxi sector in Jersey variously refers to cabs, taxi-cabs and cab services. We are aware that Controlled Taxi-cabs are commonly referred to as Taxis or Rank Taxis and Restricted Taxi-Cabs as Cabs or Restricted Cabs. When directly referring to legislation we have used the term Cab. Otherwise, throughout this report taxi' refers to both Controlled and Restricted taxis.
2. When reference is made to taxis elsewhere in the UK, taxi' will cover both Hackney-Cabs (can use ranks and available for immediate hire) and Private Hire Vehicles (minicabs or private hire cars - must be booked in advance), unless the context makes it clear otherwise. These categories do NOT match to Controlled and Restricted taxi-cabs in Jersey.

6. History

1. This is not the first time that a review of taxis in Jersey has been undertaken. Indeed, a 1992 review of Jersey Transport Policy [6] cites a May 1986 Defence Committee Taxi Working Party which recommended, amongst other points, "the ultimate merging of the taxi and cab trades". The 1992 review itself recommends some interim changes "with a view to progression to a single tier, free entry, price controlled system." It also recommends monitoring waiting times both on rank and for telephone bookings – both of which have been covered by the recent consumer research.
2. In the past ten years, there have been further examinations of the sector and a number of changes, including to the licensing structure. These do not, however, appear to have satisfied either the industry itself nor the critics of the service that is provided.

3. For example, in 2006, the Minister announced a comprehensive review of the industry, citing:

• abuse of the use of public service vehicle licences, known in the trade as "plates". In extreme cases this involved "plate holders" who no longer lived in Jersey, hiring their plates out to local drivers for fees estimated at around £100 to £150 per week;

• some driver groups objected to the total number of licence plates in circulation, a situation made worse by a practice known as "double shifting", where more than one driver operates a single licensed vehicle;

• the industry as a whole suffered from being split into a number of different groups, even though the main elements of the basic job of transporting clients were essentially common to all parties; and

• there was a widespread concern amongst the driver groups that the local industry was not receiving enough support from the States and that the laws regulating the taxi-cab industry were not being sufficiently enforced.

4. Suggestions mooted at that time included:

• a single charging structure that could incorporate a booking fee;

• the rationalisation of the operation of the rank system;

• the introduction of an Island-wide computerised booking and control system;

• an analysis of periods of customer demand, to ensure that sufficient taxi- cabs were available at peak periods; and

• The raising of the image of taxi-cabs by introducing industry-wide customer care standards and quality controls for both service and vehicles.

5. The fact that the subject is being considered yet again provides strong evidence for believing that taxi regulation is a complex issue with no straightforward answers that will satisfy all stakeholders. However, it also suggests that an approach involving small-scale, piecemeal adjustments is no longer appropriate and that the time has now come for a more radical reform of the sector.

Current Taxi Sector Regulation  2

1. Introduction

1. The Taxi regulatory framework in Jersey has evolved historically and is noticeably different from the approach that applies in the UK, the Isle of Man and continental Europe. It is administered by the Transport & Technical Services Department (TTS).
   2. Regulatory Framework

1. Taxi licensing is controlled by the Minister for Transport & Technical Services[1]. Under the Motor Traffic (Jersey) Law 1935 (Article 5), a cab (taxi) is classed as a Public Service Vehicle. Some of the regulations are therefore generic to public service vehicles, including those larger than cabs. Cabs are limited to a maximum 8 passenger capacity[2].
2. The Minister is under a duty to regulate so as to ensure that "there is an adequate, efficient and reasonably priced cab service available throughout Jersey at all times"[3]. A cab service is defined as one where the vehicle is hired as a whole (i.e. there are no separate fares). Table 1 summarises the ministerial competence that accompanies this duty.

Table 1: Ministerial Powers in respect of Cabs

Area of Control  Specific Ministerial Power Drivers  Applicant qualifications

Vehicles  Vehicle design and type

Necessary equipment to be carried including:

• Communication equipment

• Meters

Licensing  Number of taxi-cab licences issued Operational Aspects  Operating conditions, including:

of Cab Services The passenger capacity

• The manner in which and the times during which the vehicle is to be operated

• The use of stands' by particular taxis

• Driver dress codes

• Signs, advertisements and other display material

Area of Control  Specific Ministerial Power Fares / Fees  The fares and charges payable

Fees

Stands  Availability of stands' (taxi ranks)[4]

3. The Minister has the power to make changes by making Orders under Articles 38(2)(a) and 46 of the Motor Traffic (Jersey) Law 1935 without the need for primary legislation to be passed.
4. Note that the 1935 law did not contemplate a distinction between owners and operators – consequently, there are no powers specifically relating to cab service operators. (There was a similar gap in GB legislation but this was filled in 1976 in respect of private hire licensing, which now contains a specific requirement for operators to be licensed in their own right.)
5. The owner of the vehicle is required to hold a public service vehicle licence for each vehicle operated. There are some restrictions on the numbers of vehicle licences in issue, depending upon the particular purpose they are to be used for. This is dealt with in more detail below.
6. In addition to vehicle licensing, drivers need to hold an appropriate Public Service Vehicle (PSV) driver licence and obtain a Badge. The licence to drive a vehicle with capacity for 8 or fewer passengers involves a less stringent PSV driving test than one for a licence to drive a vehicle with 9 or greater passenger capacity, but has more stringent additional requirements (local knowledge'). There are no restrictions on the number of issues of PSV Driver's Badges.

3. Types of Taxis

1. In Jersey, there are three categories of taxi[5]:

• Controlled Taxis

• Restricted Taxis

• Limousine Taxis.

Controlled Taxis

2. Controlled Taxis (sometimes known as Rank Taxis') are licensed to use taxi ranks and a maximum fare control is in place. Fares are charged according to a tariff table issued by the government, and are recorded by taximeters which are checked periodically by TTS to ensure that the meter operates the controlled tariffs correctly. The actual meter calibration is undertaken by the supplier or their agent. As well as being accessed on ranks, Controlled Taxis can be hailed on street and booked in advance. It is a condition of their licence that "Radio communication must be fitted and operational". In addition, many have access to mobile phones.

3. At the time of the Workshop there were 146 Controlled Taxicab licences, all except four of which are held by individual owner/drivers.
4. The Controlled Taxi sector is represented by the Jersey Taxi Drivers Association (JTDA) which has approximately 116 members. In addition to representing its members, it also organises radio communications, taxi coordination at the airport and supports the Taxi Marshalls provided by the Safer St. Helier Board. In the view of the JTDA, the bulk of the work of Controlled Taxis[6] comes from bookings at public ranks.
5. The JTDA holds the remaining four controlled licences. Two of these were issued to enable the JTDA to use the profits from their operation to pay for the taxi coordinator at the airport. The remaining two cover reserve vehicles to be used when another Controlled vehicle is off the road, so that there is no reduction in capacity.
6. Controlled Taxis are identified by Yellow Plates as shown in Figure A.

Figure A: Controlled Taxis at the Weighbridge Rank

Restricted Taxis

7. Restricted Taxis (sometimes known as Cabs) can be booked in advance or hailed on the street. However, they are not permitted to use ranks except:

• at the Airport or the Harbour (Albert / Elizabeth Terminals), when a passenger is waiting and

no controlled taxi is available.

8. Restricted Taxis are identified by white plates. However, there is a sub-sector of Restricted Taxi licences designed to facilitate the development of Cab operating companies which own and maintain vehicles and employ drivers to drive them. The vehicles licensed in this way are identified by red plates. In addition to their own vehicles, the cab companies also deploy self-employed restricted licence holders who are affiliated to them.
9. Restricted Taxis must also be fitted with working taximeters and the fares or charges to be paid must be visible to the passenger on a Tariff Card; however, no maximum or other fare control is in place, and the TTS does not check the taximeters. The tariffs (which were until a few years ago identical to those for Controlled Taxis) follow the same structure as that used for Controlled Taxis i.e. distance / time / time of day, etc. It would be considered an offence (breach of licence) if passengers were charged higher fares on the meter than on the tariff card.
10. At the time of the Workshop, there were 159 Restricted Taxicab licences in issue, of which 50 were company operated licences (red plates).

Figure B: Restricted Taxi

Limousine Taxis

11. The Limousine category was designed to facilitate wedding, funeral and executive chauffeur services. Limousine Taxis cannot be hailed or picked up on ranks. They must be pre booked and payment needs to be through an account' and not direct to the driver. They are identifiable by a white plate saying Limousine', but must not have any other distinguishing signs that would suggest they are cabs (this is in contrast to other taxicabs which show company signs).
12. At the time of the Workshop there were 35 Limousine licences in issue. There is no restriction on the number of Limousine licences issued. Applications need to be accompanied by a Business Plan that will make it clear that the business model complies with the above rules, and applicants are interviewed to confirm this.
13. These types of taxis generally do not compete with the other types of taxis in that they are not available for hire immediately upon request, whether on or off street, and they offer a premium service. Consequently, relatively little consideration is given to Limousine Taxis further in our analysis.

Overview

2.3.14 It is evident that there is considerable overlap between Controlled Taxis and Restricted Taxis. For example, both types of taxis can be pre booked and both types of taxis can be hailed on the street. In addition both types of taxis can be used at busy periods at the airport and harbour.

2.3.15 The only differences between the two types of taxis are:

• Only Controlled Taxis can use all of the island's ranks; and

• Only Controlled Taxis have their fares regulated.

2.3.16 Table 2 summarises the formal position.

Table 2: Summary of Taxi Licence Categories

Taxi Type  Ability to Use  Ability to be  Pre-booking  Fare Control  Licences Ranks  Hailed On- available?  Regime  Issued at

Street  time of Workshop

Controlled  Yes  Yes  Yes  Maximum Fare  146

Taxis (Rank'  Control in  (all except four Taxis)  place  held by

Four time- owner/drivers) based fare

bands

Restricted Taxis

No except at  Yes Airport or the Harbour only

when

• A passenger is waiting

• No Controlled Taxi is available

Yes  Must have a  159

meter with a  (all except 50 fare table  held by

visible but fare  owner/drivers) not regulated,

(no maximum

fare)

Limousine  No  No  Mandatory  35 Taxis  AND payment

must be on

account'

17. However, in order to understand the taxi sector in Jersey, it should be

understood that Controlled Taxis are dominated by individual owner-drivers, whilst Restricted Taxis are dominated by a small number of companies, using a combination of affiliated owner-drivers and employees. This has a significant impact on attitudes, motivation and the underlying basis for investment and personal commitment, and it is vital that this is taken into account so that the impacts of any proposed regulatory changes can be assessed to ensure they do not give perverse results.

Licence numbers

18. The Minister is under a duty to issue a public service vehicle licence in respect of a vehicle, provided the standard conditions are met (ownership, fit and proper' applicant, vehicle test certificate in place) and the relevant fee is paid, except that (Article 9(6), Motor Traffic (Jersey) Law 1935):

The Minister may, in respect of a class of public service vehicles, determine that public service vehicle licences shall not be granted in excess of such number that the Minister considers desirable.

This is the basis for quantity control' of taxis in Jersey.

19. Table 3 shows the recent history of licence numbers.

Table 3: Taxi Licence Numbers

Type of Licence  2005  2009  2010  2011 Controlled Taxis (Rank)  148  1411  1444  1466 Restricted Taxis (Individual)  104  1152  1155  1155 Restricted Taxis (Company)  66  55  51  50

Limousine Taxis  28  33  35  35 Mobility Taxi-Cab7  1  1  1  1 Restricted Cab Companies  153  4  6  6

1 Minister decided to reduce controlled plate numbers by 10 in 2006

2 Company plates surrendered or revoked from 2006 were reissued as individual (white) plates

3 8 companies' operated under one of the 5 larger companies

4 140 permanent controlled licences. In addition, 4 licences awarded to individuals on compassionate grounds that will not be reissued when licensees no longer granted a licence

5 115 permanent restricted licences are available – 6 are currently being allocated to the next suitable applicants

6 Number of controlled licences is increased by 1 when two semi-retired drivers return an annual mileage of less than 50% of the overall average controlled driver mileage

7 This was issued some years ago to an applicant who just focuses on providing a service for disabled people

20. In other regimes, quantity control' i.e. restricting the number of licences issued, can lead to trading in plates if these are transferrable. This can be a way of revealing the market value / opportunity cost of getting access to a restricted trade, which in turn can make it clear to regulators the market view about taxi demand. High plate transfer values suggest that there will be a excessive return on capital, which in turn strongly suggests liberalising the market by issuing more licences. However, this will then lead to a drop in the value of the existing plates in issue which, for obvious reasons is resisted strongly by incumbents. In some regimes, this has been overcome by compensating the existing licence holders when quantity controls were abolished. Fortunately, licences in Jersey are not transferrable – they are issued to legal entities (individuals or companies) and if no longer required can only be passed back to the States. They cannot be inherited.
21. Although the need to buy' entry into the industry does not arise, quantity control does have a major impact on the potential career path for individuals interested in working as a taxi driver in Jersey. The process goes:

1. Successful application to be the holder of an appropriate Public Service Vehicle Driver's Badge
2. Name added to waiting list' for a Restricted Taxi Licence – during this time, they may be employed by another licence holder (e.g. to drive a red' company plated vehicle)

3. When a licence becomes available, it is offered to the next eligible person on the Restricted licence waiting list, following a satisfactory interview. To be eligible, a badge holder would be expected to have recent experience of working in the industry (he/she completes a questionnaire which is scored to determine eligibility for licence – if he/she doesn't score sufficient points he/she will not be invited for interview). Current wait ca. 5 years
4. Applicant takes up Restricted Licence. Name then added to the waiting list' for a Controlled Taxi Licence. Current wait ca. 15 years.

This wait time is actually reducing – in 2006, the wait was 12 years for a Restricted Licence and 16 years for a Controlled Licence.

22. Thus one can see that there is a ca. 15 year qualification period to get access to the perceived elite of the industry. There are advantages and disadvantages to this state of affairs (ignoring fares or availability level):

• Advantages

Stability – drivers are in it for the long term, can provide better service

by understanding needs of repeat passengers (critical issue for vulnerable passengers, especially those with learning disabilities)

Eliminates people who move into taxi driving on a casual, temporary

basis and who are uncommitted

Reinforces self-policing behaviour, given the cost' of losing the licence Stability enables the potential for more effective training and

introduction of new approaches

• Disadvantages

Difficult for young people to enter into the sector – new ideas,

contemporary attitudes, innovation, investment, adoption of new technology

Older age profile of taxi drivers13 – can affect fitness levels (esp.

helping disabled people).

23. Where the number of licences is restricted on the basis that some form of assessment has identified the appropriate number to meet current demand, then clearly there is a need to ensure that all the licences that are issued are fully utilised. For some years in Jersey this was tackled by attaching a condition to the licence requiring a minimum annual mileage to be undertaken with the vehicle that the licence relates to. This mileage was checked at the time the vehicle was subject to its annual standards test.

13 45 to 80 for Controlled cab licence holders; 34 to 71 for Restricted cab licence holders

24. The actual mileage levels to apply have been the subject of recent consultation with the industry (2009 and 2010), reflecting the JTDA view that reduced economic and tourism activity was making it difficult to achieve the previous 20,000 miles a year threshold. The current position is that:

• Licence holders under 65 need to achieve 75% of the previous year's average for that class of licence

• 3,000 miles is deducted for those drivers who declare that the vehicle is not for personal use

• There is no minimum mileage for licence holders aged 65 or more, but for every two such licensed vehicles that return mileages below 50% of the previous year's average mileage, a new full-time taxi-cab licence will be made available for that class.

• Licence holders must reach the minimum mileage personally, even if they employ someone else to double shift' their vehicle. [1]

• The mileage threshold will be calculated twice a year

• This policy is subject to review.

4. Driving a Taxi

1. A significant aspect of quality control for the industry is through the licensing of drivers. To drive a taxi, a person needs to be the holder of a badge to drive a Public Service Vehicle (PSV)[2]. Once someone is a badge holder, they are entitled to drive both controlled and restricted taxis.
2. The process of becoming a PSV badge holder involves:

1. Completing a brief application form confirming identity, age, local address and the details of the current driving licence held
2. A declaration from the applicant about their fitness to drive (health record and disability)
3. A medical report from the applicant's doctor as to their fitness, based on reference to a guide for medical practitioners (At a Glance) produced by UK Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (Report fee ca. £45)
4. An Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau disclosure check of the applicant's criminal record (driving a public service vehicle is a post that is exempt from the provisions of Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation)

5. An interview with a senior officer in the Driver & Vehicle Standards section of the Transport & Technical Services Department in order to verify information on the application, assess the applicant's ability to speak and understand English, and to ensure they understand the Code of Conduct.
6. A driving assessment test
7. A knowledge' test, based on the island's roads, districts and landmarks, etc.

3. On successfully completing all the stages of the application process, passing any tests as required, the person is issued a badge which requires renewal annually (£10 fee). It is at that time, that an applicant completes a form requesting that his/her name is added to the restricted taxi waiting list. There is no charge involved for this. The driver can now be employed by an existing controlled or restricted taxi licence/plate holder. There are currently around 600 badge' holders, of whom some 350 are active.

5. Fare Regulation

1. Controlled Taxis are subject to a maximum fare scale, which incorporates four different time bands. These are:

1. 1ST Tariff - between 07.00 and 23.00
2. 2ND Tariff – between 23.00 and 07.00
3. 3RD Tariff - between 07.00 and 23.00 on Sundays and Public Holidays and on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve between 20.00 and 23.00
4. 4TH Tariff – Between 23.00 Christmas Eve and midnight on 26th December, and from 23.00 New Year's Eve and midnight on New Year's Day.

2. After an initial charge, covering a minimum distance, there is a distance- related charge and a time-based waiting charge. The distances and time periods involved vary between tariffs, although the incremental charge remains the same. In some cases the base fare is the same, but the distance this will take the passenger is different[3].
3. Consequently taxi pricing is not transparent, and the fact that Restricted Taxis' prices are not regulated at all means that many, if not most passengers are not confident of the fare for their journey. That this is common elsewhere is not a reason for not attempting to improve the situation in Jersey. Indeed, ultimately it is likely to be in the industry's own interests to:

1. simplify the tariff structure

2. ensure predictability

because this would reduce one of the barriers that deters people from using taxis.

4. Fare comparisons carried out for the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA) show that Restricted Taxis are approximately 30% more expensive than Controlled Taxis for a journey of similar length. However, other comparisons undertaken for Transport & Technical Services (TTS) suggest that the gap between the two fares ranges from between 10% to 17%.

6. Other Aspects of the Sector

Ranks

1. There are ranks at:

• Airport – by arrivals building – space for ca. 35 taxis (covered waiting area for passengers)

• Harbour – by arrivals building

• St Helier:

Library Place – 12 spaces (bench close to the head of the rank)

Snow Hill – 6 spaces (no passenger waiting facilities)

Weighbridge – 9 spaces (7 extra between 18.00 and 05.00) (large

covered waiting shelter for passengers)

La Cala (Beresford Street) – 4 spaces between 18.00 and 05.00 (no

waiting facilities for passengers)

2. The Jersey Taxi Drivers Association (JTDA) report some policing difficulties with members of the public parking on taxi ranks in St. Helier , particularly Library Place and the Weighbridge overflow. Parking Control do patrol, and fine the public. There also appear to be minor problems with taxi drivers parking and walking into town, which, although this is a breach of their licence conditions, is more difficult to police because if challenged they claim to be using the toilet, etc. This might suggest the use of CCTV to gather evidence for prosecutions of parking offences by the public or breaches of licence conditions by taxi drivers, although currently CCTV evidence for this type of offence cannot be used in Jersey. It would nevertheless provide evidence to support dispute resolution as well as monitoring queuing and demand.

Figure C: Weighbridge Rank

Figure D: Library Place Rank

Figure E: Snow Hill Rank

Figure F: Beresford Street Rank

Taxi Co-ordinators

3. JTDA employs a part-time taxi co-ordinator at the airport to monitor last flights and to ensure, through radio communication with Controlled Taxis, that demand is met. Airport Duty Officers have access to the taxi-radio system to call for taxis when there is unmet demand, and at the harbour, Harbour Control Officers have similar taxi-radio system access for the same reason. In order to pay for this scheme, two Controlled licences are granted to JTDA. The profit from operating these licences is used to pay for the coordinator.

Marshals

4. A late night Taxi Marshal scheme (Q-Safe) has been in place at the Weighbridge since 2008. This provides two Marshals on Friday and Saturday nights and is designed to speed the flow of passengers into taxis and away, thus reducing the likelihood of friction and trouble. The Marshals can also call specific provision (MPVs or wheelchair-accessible vehicles) to the front of the queue. The scheme is provided by the Safer St. Helier Community Partnership and receives funds from one-off grant, sponsorship and advertising including contributions from taxi drivers. However, the scheme has struggled to attract enough funding despite being deemed to be a significant success with a stated 64% reduction in crime and disorder levels in the immediate area.

Figure G: Q-Safe Taxi Marshal Scheme[4]

5. The problems the scheme seeks to address are part of a wider issue of town centre activity promotion and management. Whilst it has been suggested that freeing up licensing hours could eliminate the peak taxi requirement that develops at closing time, and therefore the need for Marshals, this has not been the experience in GB, where Marshal schemes have grown alongside the elimination of fixed licensing hours. The general experience of such schemes in GB has been positive.
6. Greater use of smart-phone taxi booking and booking by the clubs and pubs themselves (e.g. freephones in premises) could also help reduce the evening peak requirement on rank taxis.

Hours

7. The Motor Traffic (Jersey) Law 1935 gives the Minister power to limit the hours during which a badge-holder may drive a taxi, in order to combat fatigue. As far as we are aware, no such limit has actually been set in respect of taxis. This is equivalent to the position elsewhere in Europe where this size of vehicle is below the threshold for harmonised drivers' hours regulations to apply. There is reference in the Code of Conduct to drivers ensuring they are not fatigued, and a questionnaire for Controlled drivers to complete but clearly this is not objectively enforceable.

Information

8. From a brief survey of web sources and some limited observation, the availability of information explaining to the public how the taxi system works is poor. For example, on Jersey.com which appears at or near the top of a web search for Jersey+taxis states:

There are two types of taxis on the Island, Controlled (Taxis) and Restricted (Cabs). The main difference between the two is that Controlled taxis have a yellow roof sign and a Restricted cab will have a white roof sign normally with the company name on and the words 'restricted'.

9. It is not clear whose responsibility it is to promote the use of taxis as a whole and to inform the public from the two obvious information standpoints:

• Service provision – what is available and how to use taxis

• Consumer representation – standards and how to seek redress if these are not met.

There are clearly conflicts within the industry itself – witness a recent exchange regarding the removal of a sign at the Albert Terminal that promoted Controlled Taxis, but not Restricted Taxis.

7. Company Structure

1. The Restricted Taxi sector is dominated by a limited number of companies, as can be seen from Table 3. These are:

• Citicabs

• Domino

• Luxicabs

• Yellow Cabs (a cooperative) (the four large players), and

• ABC

• Grab-a-Cab

• Liberty Cabs

2. Companies are primarily in place to promote the use of Restricted Taxis through their telephone number, and to operate the dispatch circuits. They operate in two ways:

1. By owner-drivers of Restricted Taxi-cab Licences buying in to the radio circuit. We understand that this (known as depot rent) costs drivers ca. £120 a week (including at Yellow Cabs, the cooperative) for:

Dispatch facility (staff, premises, phone line, radio circuit) In vehicle GPS/SatNav/Radio communication kit

Accounts handling

Dealing with bad debts, complaints, welfare issues, etc. The driver is responsible for providing:

The vehicle

The roof sign

The meter

This charge would amount to £3/hour for a 40 hour week (£2/hour for a 60 hour week). Drivers keep their own fares, without any percentage deduction by the companies.

2. By the companies that hold red plates employing drivers directly.

3. This review has not examined company business models in any more detail, nor looked at vehicle financing. Given that there is no current requirement for a particular (high investment) bespoke type of vehicle, vehicle financing is not considered to be a significant competition issue. There was one point, some 12 or so years ago, when it became significant because, in an effort to increase the availability of accessible vehicles, a decision was made to issue 20 additional licences but only to those willing to provide a wheelchair accessible vehicle. Some of those on the waiting list could not or would not afford the extra cost of such a vehicle (most commonly a London-style taxi, which come at a considerable purchase premium). Vehicle financing and longer-term investment could become an issue if a move towards less environmentally damaging technology is required. Recently, Luxicabs have introduced an all- electric Nissan Leaf to test the electric-vehicle concept in Jersey.
4. There is no specific licensing for companies. The only controls that apply are exercised through the licensing of Restricted Taxis. Individual licence holders must nominate the cab company which they intend to operate from. Companies applying for licences in their own right must be fit and proper'. Normally, directors of companies are not allowed to hold individual licences, nor be involved with a limousine company, to avoid conflicts of interest.
5. A very small sample of weekly charges in England for the depot rent package itemised above suggests that the cost in Jersey is some 20% higher. We stress that the sample is not large enough to be definitive, but it does warrant further investigation.

Regulatory Principles  3

1. Introduction

1. One of the hallmarks of a common law regime such as Jersey's is that the presumption is against regulation unless necessary and in favour of individual rights. This can be contrasted with a more codified regime, as seen in much of continental Europe, where the concept of collective rights, held by the state, is more evident. This gives rise to a view that a right to pursue particular activities has to be allocated by the state on behalf of its citizens rather than being inherent to the individual. This explains why the approach to taxi regulation (and passenger transport generally) can look quite different in continental Europe compared to the UK. However, with both regimes now within the European Union, there is increasing harmonisation due to cross- cutting legislation covering, for example, State Aid, public procurement and competition. Jersey, of course, is not part of the EU but nevertheless does recognise some of the principles involved.
2. A taxi regulatory regime in Jersey therefore needs to reflect a specific set of objectives and, to avoid challenge, these objectives need to be based on objective evidence.
3. There is a view that a taxi service is underpinned by a series of private contracts between the operator and a series of users and therefore that state intervention should be minimal. This is strengthened in the UK by the name Private Hire' that is applied to contracts booked in advance. However, the Jersey regime is admirably clear in identifying that these are public service vehicles and that there are good justifications for state intervention.
4. Possible objectives for taxi regulation include:

• consumer protection relating to:

safety

quality

provision of information

cost

• rationing access to a scarce resource

• integration and coordination with some other service where this is unlikely to occur without intervention

• maintenance of open access and fair competition for entrants to and participants within the industry

• organising, enabling or stimulating collective action to make improvements that would be unlikely to occur without intervention

this can involve state investment

• taxation of an activity to raise government revenue

• state level policy considerations such as:

macro-economic considerations relating to employment / business

generation

social policy in terms of equality and reduction of disadvantage,

elimination of discrimination

• compliance with one or more aspects of a superior legislation.

5. The consumer protection issues are worth considering in more detail. The need for intervention reflects the fact that the consumer of a taxi service available for immediate hire is not in a position to readily discriminate between offers on the basis of particular characteristics and therefore there is a requirement that all taxis must meet a minimum threshold standard. In practice, the consumer of a taxi service available through advance booking is not in a much stronger position. They may lack the technical expertise to discriminate by particular quality characteristics and unless there is an effective market provision of information, choice may be limited. To the extent that there is a standard service offer', one would expect consumers to be able to obtain a competitive price by shopping around. Evidence that this is not happening suggests a lack of competition or a restricted market.
6. Note, however, that this model assumes a standard service offer'. Of course, service may be differentiated through vehicle quality, reliability, driver attitude or some other feature, which would be the driver' for consumer preference. However, we do not believe that, other than ease of booking', these are particularly significant or effective differentiators in the taxi market[1].

2. Consumer Protection Issues

3.2.1  The most important issue is safety. Customers should be entitled to the highest level of safety that is practically achievable. There are several aspects to safety including:

• Vehicle Standards

• Vehicle Maintenance

• Driving Standards

• Driver Training

• Driver Behaviour

• Driver Health

• Other Personal Safety Issues

3. Safety – Vehicle Standards

1. One approach could be to simply assume that any vehicle that meets whole vehicle type approval under EU or UK registration regimes is safe. However, there is a requirement for a higher safety standard for a vehicle in public service than for an individual consumer. This reflects both the intensity of use which necessitates the use of more robust equipment, and a wider set of possible occurrences necessitating the carrying of emergency items such as a first aid kit & fire extinguisher. In addition, the vehicle may be:

• unfamiliar to passengers, which means that there is a need for clear instructions as to how to open doors, etc.

• catering for a wide range of users thus requiring, for example, height adjustable seat belts for children, provision of child seats / booster cushions and head rests for all rear seats.

2. Vehicles that have been modified will need to be checked before acceptance. This is particularly likely to be the case with minibus-style' vehicles and vehicles designed to accommodate people with disabilities, where this involves a converter / coachbuilder modifying a commercial van or chassis outside type approval. The Motor Traffic (Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness)) (Jersey) Order 2003, as modified, does not have any specific standards for taxis, nor does the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Jersey) Order 1998[2]. And whilst the latter does have Schedule 6 that covers the Construction of Minibuses, it does not deal adequately with the needs of disabled users and their specialist equipment (for example in terms of wheelchair space requirements and gangway widths).
3. Another option is to require that vehicles used for public service meet the highest Euro NCAP[3] standards. Note that this would significantly reduce the pool of vehicle-types available to deploy as taxis.

4. Safety - Vehicle maintenance

3.4.1  To ensure that any vehicle a user might get into is safe at all times, taxis must be highly maintained. This is generally a matter of more frequent scheduled inspections / tests than are required for private vehicles and an enhanced spot check regime. This reflects the greater than average intensity of use (particularly mileage) that one might anticipate from a taxi. There may also be additional test requirements for any specialist equipment carried.

5. Safety – Driving Standards

1. This is a straightforward issue. Given the relatively low technical competence level that someone taking a standard car driving test is required to reach and the almost complete lack of consideration given within it to attitudinal issues relating to driving, it is reasonable to require drivers of public service vehicles to achieve above average levels of competence. This suggests a separate driving test. As there is no appropriate category within the harmonised international driving licence and test structure, this test would need to be a bespoke access to the profession' test and could include coverage of any road or traffic management issues that are specific to Jersey.
2. Given the need for and the clear benefits derived from speed awareness courses made available in Great Britain to those caught exceeding the speed limit by a relatively small amount, there is strong evidence that driving familiarity can result in over-confidence, regardless of maturity, which in turn suggests that refresher testing might be justified to maintain high standards. However, a decision on this should be based on actual evidence of accident rates among taxi drivers of all kinds in Jersey and this is data that we have not seen. Finally, there should be reference to the applicant's motoring history and any previous driving offences above a chosen threshold should bar an applicant from entry to the profession. This threshold should be maintained, so that a licensed driver who is convicted of a motoring offence above the entry threshold should potentially lose their taxi licence. This is, in fact, the current approach in Jersey.
3. The current Jersey taxi driving application process does bar applicants with significant driving convictions and does require the applicant to take a practical driving test. The assessment threshold will be a matter of professional judgement. It seems unlikely that the statistical basis exists for a distinctly local view of this, which suggests that reference should be made to and experiences shared (including refresher training for examiners) with the UK Driving Standards Agency (DSA)[4].

6. Safety – Driver Training

1. Beyond their ability to drive, there are safety requirements for taxi drivers in respect of the use of vehicle equipment and, in particular, the carriage of vulnerable passengers. This needs to cover:

• Adjustment and use of seat belts, particularly where generation' belts are fitted

• Adjustment and use of child seats, booster cushions and safety harnesses

• Assisting passengers with disabilities to board and alight from the vehicle and, where appropriate:

• Use of WTORS (Wheelchair Tie-Down and Occupant Restraint Systems)

• Deployment and use of passenger lifts and ramps.

2. The regulatory authority might also conclude that there is little point in a requirement for a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher to be carried if the driver has not had training in how to use them effectively.

7. Safety – Driver Behaviour

1. In addition to requiring very good driving skills, taxi drivers should also be required to deliver acceptable behaviour in their interaction with their actual and prospective passengers. Although this is primarily a quality issue, the nature of the taxi environment does occasionally give rise to cases of racist language, sexual harassment and assault.
2. Some of the passengers who need to travel by taxi are vulnerable and in an enclosed one-to-one environment with the taxi driver. It therefore is appropriate for the regulatory authority to erect barriers to entering the profession based on the past personal (criminal) records of the applicant and also to expel from the profession those who fail to maintain the required standard, whether the failure occurs whilst they are driving a taxi or at some other time. This raises questions about what the reasonable standards should be and also the extent to which double jeopardy should be avoided.
3. Jersey currently requires applicants to undergo a Criminal Records Bureau check and, we assume, would require registration with the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), if and when this finally gets properly established, to ensure that the regulatory authority receives up to date information about licence holders' criminal record, rather than this being on a one-off basis.
4. The Westminster government has been indecisive as to whether taxi and private hire drivers require a standard or an enhanced CRB check. The initial

view was that only those drivers who were engaged in specific contracts that brought them into contact with vulnerable adults and children should be subject to an enhanced check. This then led to duplicate applications (one standard CRB clearance checked by the licensing authority to obtain a taxi licence and then an enhanced CRB clearance checked by the education authority) and, in practice two standards of licensed taxi. The general view of the profession is that a single, transferable clearance to the highest level is best. This does require the taxi licensing authority to liaise with the education and social services authorities so that a clear common view is established as to what will bar someone from the profession, remembering that an enhanced CRB clearance with specific checks of List 99 will include information that goes beyond actual convictions, including police cautions and employment history including anything to suggest that the individual may have voluntarily left a previous post to avoid being dismissed or investigated. This becomes a matter of professional judgement and, if implemented by the licensing authority, must reflect the needs of education and social work. In Jersey, usefully, an Enhanced Clearance is already required across the board.

8. Safety – Driver Health

1. This is a matter of requiring a public service vehicle driver to meet higher standards than someone who is driving privately, because in the latter case the individual is making risk' decisions for themselves, whereas in the former case, they would be taking risk' decisions for their passengers who may well have a lower risk' threshold. The current Jersey PSV driver application process requires applicants to have a medical report form completed by their doctor confirming that they are fit to drive a taxi and also make a formal declaration that they have not had or do not have "any disease, mental or physical, or any disability which would be likely to interfere with the efficient discharge of your duties as a driver or to cause the driving by you of a public service vehicle to be a source of danger to the public".
2. Again, significant levels of professional judgement come into play here. Our recommendation would be to make reference to the UK Guidance issued by Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and that doctors who may issue Medical Reports should be in possession of the "At a Glance Guide to the current Medical Standards of Fitness to Drive" issued by the DVLA Drivers Medical Group. This contains the advice that the same medical standards applied to bus and lorry drivers should also be applied to taxi drivers.[5] We understand that this is indeed the model followed in Jersey.

9. Safety – Personal Safety

1. There are other safety considerations that could be considered as justification for intervention within the regulatory process because of the contribution they can make to passenger safety.
2. Vehicle colour / livery – in areas where standard saloon or similar vehicles can be used as taxis (i.e. not all taxis are purpose built London-style taxis), then there is an argument that these should be painted/wrapped[6] in a unique livery so that there is a clear distinction between licensed and unlicensed vehicles. There is a long and growing history in Great Britain of women, in particular, getting into unlicensed vehicles, assuming that they were getting into a taxi and then being driven somewhere and assaulted. This is mostly connected with people leaving clubs and bars where they have been drinking and where their awareness may be impaired. We are not aware whether this is an issue in Jersey.
3. The following picture shows the mandatory livery in Brighton and Hove, using a two tone colour scheme, mostly white (good visibility and a standard manufacturer's colour, thus keeping costs down) but with the addition of bonnet / boot (or rear door) coloured aqua' (non-standard colour). Note the licensing authority decals are produced in a matching aqua' colour.

4. CCTV is increasingly common in taxis. Whilst installation has largely been driven by a concern to protect taxi drivers from assault, other reasons have been cited in the past, including concern for the welfare of passengers[7] and

the need for evidence where, for example, there is a suggestion that taxi drivers are evading their obligations under the cab rank principle i.e. that they will take the first person who requests their services, regardless of how short their journey is or their personal circumstances.

5. Decisions to install CCTV need to take into account data protection principles, including:

• notifying people that CCTV is being used

• retaining the data securely for given lengths of time

• restricting access to the data

• securely destroying the data.

6. Booking records can be a source of useful information. Operators, whether single person drivers or companies, can be required to retain booking records for a given length of time to facilitate investigation into incidents. This is primarily to enable resolution of disputes but, as experience in the UK has shown, can assist in solving criminal cases. This is recommended for Jersey.

10. Safety – Evaluation of Benefits

1. It might be questioned why Jersey should need safety standards for its vehicles that would be higher than many locations in the UK. However, it is worth noting that some UK local licensing authorities are deterred from introducing higher standards because of a view that they could be disadvantaging their locally licensed vehicles which are, to an extent, in competition with those licensed in neighbouring authority areas. Cross-border competition is not an issue that Jersey is faced with. It therefore suggests that potential safety and quality improvements should be evaluated on the basis of:

1. Cost-benefit analysis – in the same way that any other safety-related investment decision is made, does the combination of risk and outcome justify the investment?
2. Collective or political aspirations – does Jersey want to establish a high standard for taxis as the local norm, in line, perhaps, with the relatively good quality of bus provision
3. Market potential – would establishing a higher threshold create the basis for growing the market with advantages for the operators (passenger growth) and the States (modal shift, reduced congestion, better air quality, etc.)

4. Affordability – improvements must be consistent with a sustainable market i.e. there must be the basis for paying for them through either:

Additional net income derived from growth Cost-saving

A contribution from existing profits.

2. Note that this latter point rests on the assumption that existing profits are at such a level as to enable additional costs to be covered without harming the industry. We do not have access to primary information about how individual taxi owners and the companies involved are achieving their business objectives. However, the secondary indicators:

• Market stability

• Extremely lengthy waiting lists for entry

suggest strongly that the taxi market in Jersey is making reasonably good[8] profits.

11. Quality Issues

1. Quality issues are those which, while not directly relevant to passenger safety, can affect the quality of the passenger's experience. Quality issues can either be left to the market to determine, or can be the subject of regulatory intervention. If left to the market, then there are a number of disadvantages for passengers. Firstly, without regulation, there is likely to be a higher degree of variability in the quality of taxi provision, which will mean that some passengers will not have their expectations for comfort met. Secondly, passengers will not know what to expect. Thirdly, as many visitors will use taxis, a good quality taxi service can be seen as being part of an overall high quality tourist offer. In this context, taxi drivers can be viewed as ambassadors for the tourist industry.
2. There are a number of aspects of vehicle quality that have been considered worth regulating in regimes elsewhere:

• Seat size – primarily to ensure adequate width where there are bench seats

• Head room – often linked to ease of entry / exit – especially the extent to which rear doors open wide enough to enable someone to be able to sit down backwards onto a seat

• Availability of handrails or handles

• The regulatory authority needs to determine particularly detailed specifications where wheelchair users are to be carried because these are not set down in construction regulations. These will need to cover

Entry / exit requirements

Space allocated within the vehicle (linked to the safety specifications

about provision of WTORS) and access to it

• Climate control – heating / ventilation. (Whilst standard manufacturer's provision will be acceptable for type-approved cars / MPVs, this will not necessarily be the case for converted vehicles)

• Vehicle livery and vehicle cleanliness (inside / outside)

• Boot space / luggage capacity.

3. Some regulatory authorities have developed a list of acceptable vehicles and/or conversions to act as a simple proxy for the above. Other authorities have utilised vehicle age as a proxy for safety and quality, although this is a contentious issue, especially with purpose built (e.g. London-style) taxis and converted vehicles, particularly wheelchair accessible ones, where it is felt that the necessary investment in a significantly more expensive vehicle should be reflected in a longer utilisation time.
4. In addition to vehicle quality, there are issues around driver quality. Driver quality includes literacy, numeracy and especially an ability to speak English; in addition, driver attitude, helpfulness and courteousness affect the quality of the passengers' experience. Adopting a uniform for drivers can also improve service delivery partly by the obvious visual improvement, but also through the symbolic message that a good uniform can send about being member of a professional service.
5. Equality issues are important if the taxi sector is to serve and be open to all sectors of the community. A key issue is driver behaviour towards all Jersey residents and visitors to Jersey. Ensuring that all members of the community are equally able to become taxi drivers is another aspect of equality.
6. The physical fitness of drivers, especially as this relates to the ability of drivers to offer assistance to passengers is an important factor in determining the quality of service that can be offered. Back problems are not uncommon in taxi drivers, and the frequency of back problems tends to increase with age. This may be a particular issue for self-employed drivers. In the past, the introduction of an age limit has been suggested; however, this is increasingly seen as arbitrary given the relative improvement in personal fitness within age cohorts tied in to increased life expectancy.
7. Training in respect of "lifting and handling" is now becoming a critical health & safety issue in the care sector. Lifting passengers should be avoided or

undertaken only with assistance and/or equipment. Additionally, taxi drivers are frequently required to lift heavy luggage.

8. A major issue which is not being raised in Jersey at the moment is that of access to taxis for people with physical disabilities. Ideally, the entire taxi fleet should be wheelchair accessible. However, many current wheelchair accessible vehicles are less convenient for people with bending or walking difficulties to enter into, particularly where the ability to sit down onto a seat from outside the vehicle, as can be done with a conventional saloon car with a good door opening, is the preferred option. Consequently, a more nuanced approach to ensuring the availability of an adequate provision of appropriately designed vehicles to meet different passenger needs, is required.
9. Other aspects of vehicle design to make it accessible to people with walking / bending / etc. difficulties should also be considered along with tactile ID plates for use by people with visual impairment.
10. The quality of service for passengers with disabilities can also be improved by ensuring that there are adequate training arrangements and by the involvement of representative organisations of disabled people in considering service standards. Adequate monitoring arrangements will need to be introduced to ensure taxis and taxi drivers are meeting the specified standards.
11. Environmental performance of taxis is becoming an increasingly important issue primarily in response to policy and regulatory requirements, but also to meet the public's and passengers' expectations. Areas for consideration include air quality (Euro 5 and beyond), noise levels, energy use (including the consideration of alternative fuels) and rules on switching engines off while waiting (already covered in the Highway Code, but not necessarily complied with). We note the recent introduction by Luxicabs of a Nissan LEAF to complement its Toyota Prius Hybrid. Given the geography of the island, there would appear to be significant potential for rechargeable electric vehicles.
    12. Information provision

1. The provision of information to potential passengers is an important function. From the point of view of the passenger, it is vital to have information about how fares are calculated in order to make informed travel decisions. Having well-informed consumers also contributes to efficient market operation.
2. Information provision can either be the responsibility of the state, or the operators. The state can set down tariffs, and require minimal set of information to be displayed on the vehicle, at taxi ranks and elsewhere, for example on websites.

13. Fares

1. Consideration needs to be given to the basis and method for regulating fares. Associated questions include how frequently fares should be reviewed and what method should be used.
2. If a reference index is used by the state to make fare revisions, this could be either an existing index (e.g. RPI) or a bespoke one. If a bespoke one is used, then its components will need to be determined, and responsibility for data collection to update it decided upon.
3. In the UK, fares regulation applies to Hackney (rank) taxis but not to private hire (restricted taxis) The result is that taxi fares have been held down in many areas at the request of Hackney (rank) drivers themselves, to avoid the creation of a (large) price differential between taxi fares and private hire fares which would transfer business away from the hackney (rank) market. So this raises the question whether market alternatives are considered in the fare setting protocol.
4. Passengers generally prefer a situation where there is fare transparency so that they know how much to expect to pay before they travel. This is most readily achieved by fares being regulated. However, there is a tension between regulating fares throughout (consistent, easy to market, passengers understand, etc.) and allowing a competitive market to set fares which may generate lower fares and special offers. The use of a maximum fare (i.e. allowing operators to offer discounts) is a compromise position.

14. Taxi-Sharing

1. It can make sense to allow passengers to share taxis. When passengers want to share, or are offered the choice about whether to share, a question arises about how the fare is to be charged between the sharers. There are several models which are used elsewhere in the world.
2. A common approach is for the first passenger to have the option of sharing with someone else in the queue. The potential share may be initiated by:

• The passenger

• The taxi driver

• The person who takes the booking, where booked in advance

• A third party.

3. A variation on this is used in the  Netherlands for taxi-sharing at train  stations – TreinTaxi. Here, the taxi offers  

either a sole use, conventional taxi service, or a quasi-bus type shared service with lower fares. Again, the first person has the option of sole use or sharing, but in the latter case, the taxi may wait up to 10 minutes to see if other passengers want to participate[9].

4. A more organised system uses marshals to organise sharing between people going to nearby destinations. In GB outside London, the potential for shared taxi zones were introduced in 1985, either where the local authority designated a location or where a significant proportion of local taxi licence holders requested it. In practice, no large-scale zones were established and only a few smaller ones, mostly providing for two types of ranks at specific interchange points – mainly railway stations. Research suggested that simply designating a zone did not adequately enable the concept to be marketed to and understood by taxi users. However, in one location – Paddington Station in London, the sharing concept needed to be introduced following the introduction of the Heathrow Express rail service, as this was bringing passengers into the station faster than the conventional rank taxis could distribute them to their end destinations. Consequently, a fixed-fare taxi- sharing regime was introduced to specified zones (West Wend, City, etc.) and implemented by taxi marshals. This still operates at weekday mornings and has subsequently been introduced at Euston station, as well as on a one-off basis for Buckingham Palace Garden Parties and the Wimbledon Tennis Tournament. It is overseen by the licensing authority – now Transport for London (TfL).
5. With all of these sharing models, there are a number of issues to be resolved because whichever system is adopted, it needs to be able to charge the sharers in a fair way. For example, if two people are sharing, and one person is only travelling half the distance of the second, how is the overall bill to be split? Taxi drivers also need to know they are working within a system which means they will not lose out by serving the needs of sharers. But the advantages are spelt out by TfL:

• Passengers pay lower fares for door-to-door journeys than they would if travelling alone

• If there is a long queue of passengers or a local shortage of taxis, passenger waiting times will be reduced

• Drivers get more revenue for each trip than they normally would

• There are fewer taxi trips overall, resulting in less noise, disruption, traffic congestion and pollution.

6. In addition to the zonal model (see Figure H), TfL has set down a formal system for dividing the normal meter tariff up between passengers who are sharing[10].

Figure H: Temporary TfL Fixed Fare Taxi Sharing during Underground closure

7. Beyond the simple sharing' model, taxi services can start to look like quasi- bus services, but rather than operating to a timetable, they may only operate on demand, but between points that are determined in advance – these may be real or virtual bus stops. The French Taxitub model is a case in point. Where the start and finish points are easily identifiable, such as is the case with numbered bus stops, then the booking process can be fully automated.

Figure I: A Real' Taxitub Stop in Côtes-d'Armor, Brittany

8. There are many variations around the world on the use of taxis for such unconventional public services generally known as Demand Responsive Transport or DRT.

15. Other Unconventional

1. Consideration needs to be given to how regulation should deal with the existence or development of other unconventional models of passenger transport such as;

• Motorbike taxis

• Cycle rickshaws

• Car clubs

• Lift-sharing

• Van pools (US model for commuting)

• Drive your car home service (commonly used when the customer has exceeded their alcohol limit).

2. One final point to note is that GB also has a Permit system for minibus use that provides a light touch regulation for voluntary groups and charities that are operating on a not-for-profit basis, but need to make a charge to users to recover running costs. This was introduced in 1977 and although there are occasional rumbles of unfair competition' from the commercial sector, it has been a significant success. There are many Community Transport schemes operating successfully in the UK delivering significant benefits at low cost to

the state. We understand that there are some unofficial' community-based operations on Jersey, and it may be worth reviewing their position when the opportunity arises.

16. Other tier' issues

1. Even where the second tier of taxis is advance booking only, as is the case in GB, there are potential reasons for significant regulation. These include:

• The market balance between the first tier and the second tier, and particularly the concern that a lighter-touch regime for the second-tier may lead to a reduction of first tier operators as they transfer between regimes. This has certainly been one of the concerns that deterred some English rural authorities from requiring hackney taxis to be wheelchair accessible.

• Unrestricted numbers of private hire (restricted) taxis can see a move towards a situation where the operating companies are dominant and start to extract a rent for access to the market (by controlling their well- advertised booking systems and associated marketing) in a way that forces drivers into excessive self-exploitation. Examples have included charging for putting aspirant entrant drivers through company driving schools and into leasing vehicles with high maintenance costs. In England, this has led to examples of a move to the cash economy, tax evasion and benefits fraud combined with a higher incidence of breaches of licence conditions.

2. In GB, local authorities are usually the largest single purchaser of taxi services in their area and have some quite specific quality standard requirements for adult social care and special education, but it is extremely rare for there to be any coordination between the authorities' taxi procurement function (carrot) and their taxi licensing function (stick). This lack of coordination results in different quality standards being applied by procurement and taxi licensing parts of the same authority with the result that a two tier or even three tier taxi standard develops, and there is duplication of processes such as vehicle examinations and CRB checks.
3. Whether this is an issue for Jersey depends upon the extent to which the States of Jersey government uses taxis for:

• Social care purposes

• Home to school transport, especially for children with special educational needs

• Health-related journeys.

4. Co-ordinating formal and informal regulatory processes both reduces costs for the regulator, and reduces the regulatory burden on operators. Reduced

regulatory burden on operators has the benefits of allowing lower fares to be charged, and reduces barriers to entry for new drivers.

17. Competition Issues

1. The standard economic model for producing the best outcome for consumers is to allow the greatest possible level of competition between providers on the basis that it is market mechanisms which are able to produce the best results for the consumer. "Competition policy is based on a belief in the economic benefits of competition. The starting assumption is that market forces are the most effective means of ensuring efficiency in the allocation of resources, of adapting to change and, ultimately, of maximising consumer welfare" (McAleese D, Economics For Business, Prentice Hall 2001).
2. However, as has been noted above, the consumer is not always in possession of all the relevant information when they are making a choice about taxi travel, and in addition the unregulated competition model is not one that necessarily produces optimum results. Further, as TAS' recent submission to the UK Competition Commission noted, there is a difference between a consumer product available in a shop and purchasing travel, which is due to the critical effect of time on travel – for example when a plane load of passengers arrive at the airport, many taxis are required simultaneously; however at other times of the day, overall demand across the whole of Jersey may be very low. The demand for travel cannot be saved up' and distributed evenly across a day.
3. There is a conflict between more and more quality standards established by the regulatory authority which have the objective of ensuring a high quality experience for the consumer, and allowing the market to develop a series of solutions which will no doubt contain various quality offers, various pricing offers, various accessibility levels.
4. Having a wide diversity of provision available would make taxis very difficult to market' as a consistent sector, but does this matter? Is there any evidence that people would use taxis more if the sector was marketed as a single entity? This issue is dealt with later by looking at the evidence available from international comparators.
5. The regulatory challenge in terms of competition is, therefore, to devise a system which offers the consumer the best opportunity of securing a good- quality taxi at the best possible price in circumstances varying from the arrival of a full peak-time plane at the airport to a short rural journey at 11.00PM.
6. The current features of the taxi business on Jersey are that it has restricted entry with relatively low investment requirements. This can result in domination by self-employed owner drivers in it for the long-run. There are pros and cons within this approach. Amongst the pros is the fact that

individual drivers are a flexible resource - having a large number of suppliers reduces the chance of any one supplier achieving a dominant market position, and self-employed drivers have a strong incentive to meet customer demand since their income is directly related to the amount of business they carry out. Some of the cons are that having a fragmented set of suppliers can make introducing and monitoring quality standards more difficult, it is more difficult to negotiate and consult with a large number of people who are busy earning a living and if drivers are working in the business for the long-term it can be difficult for new drivers to enter the market with new initiatives.

7. How does the competitive market manage on the one hand to create a solid professional core of people who are committed to the industry and see it as a career, whilst on the other hand allowing open entry to what is inherently a low entry barrier industry? To get into the industry requires:

• The ability to drive safely (a very common skill)

• A suitable vehicle (easily obtainable and affordable)

• Means of communication (increasingly cheap and sophisticated)

• Marketing (at a basic level, taxi ranks are market stands and these are provided by the States).

8. Restricted entry is less likely to maintain the surplus capacity (drivers and vehicles sitting around not being used) that will provide for:

1. Peak needs
2. Antisocial work (night-time economy)
3. Rural cover

However, whilst there is evidence to suggest that deregulated markets do provide better for a) and b) above, they still don't provide for c).

9. New technology has the potential to change the taxi provision model – for instance by giving every smartphone user real-time information about the availability and location of taxis. There is, therefore a question about whether the advance of new technology means that the existing model is out of date. It should be noted that for the introduction of new technology to be successful, there is often a need for considerable investment and someone would have to pay for this. The introduction of some types of new technology (e.g. smartcards) needs careful planning to ensure that the whole market adopts the same integrated and coordinated system at the same time.
10. The expense and difficulty of introducing new technology does not apply equally to all new technologies. The adoption of mobile phones by taxi drivers, for example, which allowed customers to communicate directly with drivers for

the first time, changed the way the taxi business operates cheaply and without the need for sophisticated planning. Similarly, it may be that the introduction of new communications technologies in the future e.g. smartphones with apps, can be adopted cheaply and on an individual basis. Another advantage of the introduction of this type of new technology is that it can be adopted without the industry getting tied into obsolete proprietary technology solutions.

Stakeholder Experience in Jersey  4

1. Introduction

1. Stakeholder input should form an important part of the policy making process. The States of Jersey recognise this, and commissioned market research and a workshop to gain a better understanding of customers' and taxi drivers' views respectively. Additional information has also been added from the States' Sustainable Transport Policy consultation, and from representative bodies for disability groups.
   2. The Market Research

1. In late 2010, Transport & Technical Services commissioned some market research into taxi performance from The Marketing Bureau Ltd. Using a mixture of on-street observation, on-street surveys of the public, test bookings and mystery travel, this was a comprehensive and revealing survey, whose only downside was the fact that it was carried out in December – the off-season as far as tourism is concerned. However, to compensate for this, a further piece of research was undertaken in August 2011.
2. The technical charts from the research are attached at Appendix A. A summary of the key points is set out below.

DECEMBER Street Surveys

3. Street Surveys were undertaken in St Helier and St Brelade. 200 people were surveyed (St.H 150 / St. B 50) (7 not from Jersey) seeking views on the general opinion of taxi services, fares, complaints and suggested improvements:

Table 4: Key Findings from Street Survey

Question  St Helier  St Brelade

% answering  % answering No'  No'

Do you understand the difference between a rank taxi and a  66  78 restricted taxi?

Do you know which type of taxi is cheaper?  57  62

• Most (92% / 78%) use taxis even if only occasionally

• Key usage is for leisure (68% / 57% of mentions)

• Some respondents ( 29% / 16%) only find getting a taxi easy, sometimes', whilst fewer (3% / 10%) find it seldom' easy

• There is a preference for telephoning a taxi as this provides a guarantee that it will turn up on time for key appointments, especially if one establishes a relationship with the company

• A high proportion (41% / 52%) do not know where to complain

• Suggested service improvements reflected the location:

In St. Helier , most frequent suggestion was cheaper taxis

In St. Brelade , most frequent suggestion was improved service

• General opinion of aspects of the service:

Value for Money – Fairly Poor

Condition of taxi – Good to Excellent

Driver Image – Good to Excellent

Overall Service – Average to Good

Mystery Shopper Journeys

4. A range of 12 journeys was attempted through telephone booking with 5 taxi companies (i.e. restricted taxis) and with a number advertised as being for rank taxis. For each taxi company, the journeys attempted covered 3 daytime and 1 evening journey each for distances of 1, 2 and 5 miles.

The Key Finding was that no taxi was available for 26% of attempted journeys

• 19 of the 72 journeys attempted (26%) were not completed because no taxi was stated to be available [A key finding]. The highest rate of refusals (38%) was for the 1 mile journeys.

• The wait time predicted by the company was compared to the actual wait time:

1 mile journeys - 29% more than 5 minutes late 2 mile journeys – 47% late

5 mile journeys – 81% late

• The cost estimate given over the telephone was compared with the actual cost:

1 mile journeys - 62% over £1 more expensive 2 mile journeys – 8% more expensive

5 mile journeys – 41% more expensive Airport Activities

5. A survey was carried out over in both the Arrival and Departure areas to determine service level.

The key finding was that there were generally more than enough taxis to cater for passengers without delay

• Of Departures observed over two days (Sunday – Monday) (227 people surveyed):

48.5% residents / 51.5% visitors

74% used pre-booked taxis – primarily (95%) for convenience 50% used individual restricted taxis (white plates)

30% used rank taxis (yellow plates)

20% used company restricted taxis (red plates)

Significant variation in fares from the same parishes, but often highest

and lowest were from the same company.

Perceptions:

• Value for money – Average to Excellent

• Condition of Vehicle – Excellent

• Driver Image – Excellent

• At Arrivals, 16 flights viewed over 6 days:

Generally more than enough taxis to cater for passengers without

delay: [A key finding]

• 4 days had no waiting delays at all

• 1 day had 2 wait periods of 7.5 minutes and 2.5 minutes respectively

• 1 day (Saturday) there were not enough taxis between 09:00 and 11:00 with waiting times varying between 4 minutes and 12 minutes

Corporate Accounts

6. A survey was conducted of 100 businesses; 48 held accounts with taxi companies; 6 only use rank taxis.

• Of the 48 account holders:

20 stated they received a discounted fare None knew their average spend

• Of the 52 non-account holders:

Use made of 3 taxi companies – most commonly because their

preferred company was always on time

Not too much difficulty obtaining a taxi

• Perceptions:

Value for money – Average to Good

Punctuality – Good to Excellent

Availability – Good to Excellent

AUGUST Street Surveys

7. 200 surveys of random individuals encountered on street in St. Helier . They confirmed the key findings of the December surveys.

• Most (89%) use taxis even if only occasionally

• Key usages are leisure (77% of mentions) and business (23%)

• Some respondents ( 31%) only find getting a taxi easy, sometimes', whilst fewer (9%) find it seldom' easy

• Over 50% did not know which type of taxi is cheaper

• 47% preferred to telephone for a taxi, 26% to use a rank; 22% had no preference

• 38% don't know who to direct a complaint to

• The most popular improvement would be cheaper fares (47%), followed some way behind by greater availability (14%), improved manners (8%) and better punctuality (7%). But almost a quarter either didn't want any changes or didn't know of any changes they wanted.

• General opinion of aspects of the service: Value for Money – Average

Condition of taxi – Good to Excellent Driver Image – Average to Good

Overall Service – Average to Good Mystery Shopper Journeys

8. As in December, a range of 12 journeys was attempted through telephone booking with each of 5 taxi companies and the rank. For each taxi company, the journeys attempted covered 3 daytime and 1 evening journey each for distances of 1, 2 and 5 miles, covering both weekday and weekend journeys.

The Key Finding was no taxi was available for 19% of attempted journeys

• 14 of the 72 journeys attempted (19.4%) were not completed because no taxi was stated to be available [A key finding]. The highest rate of refusals was for the 2 mile journeys.

• The wait time predicted by the company was compared to the actual wait time:

1 mile journeys - 14% more than 5 minutes late 2 mile journeys – 23% late

5 mile journeys – 10% late

• The cost estimate given over the telephone was compared with the actual cost:

1 mile journeys - 7% over £1 more expensive 2 mile journeys – 15% more expensive

5 mile journeys – 10% more expensive

9. Compared to December, the customer experience had improved, albeit not to acceptable levels. It raises the question whether there is a seasonal increase in supply in the summer.

Rank Observations

10. These were made in the late evenings / early mornings at the Weighbridge rank on Thursday 25th August and Saturday 27th August and examined the

supply of vehicles, the use of taxis and the number of people in the queue taken every 15 minutes.

• Thursday – no real queues – very little time when no taxis were at the rank

• Saturday – queues peaked at 00.00, 01.30 and 02.30. The midnight queue

(34) was soon cleared, whereas the later queues took much longer, with 91 people in the queue at 02.15. The number of taxis used in each 15 minute block was reasonably constant from 23.15 onwards, varying from 24 to 39. increased from 01.00, along with the lengths of times when no taxis were at the rank, culminating at over a 15 minute wait for a taxi at 02.15. This suggests that the relatively constant provision cannot cope with the more significant variations in demand that derive from some aspects of the night- time economy.

Port Surveys

11. These were undertaken at the Harbour and at the Airport, focusing on visitors to Jersey.

• Airport users were more likely to use a taxi because a lot of Harbour visitors brought their own cars to Jersey.

• Around 36% of users at both locations telephoned for a taxi; however, whereas 16% of Harbour users relied on on-street hailing, only 2% of Airport users deployed this method.

• Between 8% (Harbour) and 12% (Airport) of visitors found it difficult to get a taxi, particularly late at night.

• UK, Irish and French visitors found Jersey taxis more expensive than their domestic counterparts, as did those from outside Europe. Visitors from the rest of Europe, however, find Jersey taxis cheaper.

12. In summary, there are four identified problems:

1. shortage of rank taxis at late night / early morning weekend peak
2. lack of availability for rural journeys
3. confusion about taxi types
4. no service guarantee when phone booking.

3. States' Sustainable Transport Policy Consultation

1. Consultation in late 2009 for the purpose of developing the States' Sustainable Transport Policy received just under 1,500 responses to a green paper. These  included 180 which commented on taxis, of which 128 considered that taxi fares are too expensive.

2. In March 2011, the Chamber of Commerce held discussions with the Jersey Taxi Drivers Association and suggested that:

• A dress code should be introduced so that people arriving at the airport or harbour would be met by drivers in dress that displays a high level of service

• Making rank taxis all the same colour would make them easier to spot (and assist the public to distinguish between rank taxis and private hire).

4. Issues raised at 22nd March 2011 Workshop

1. A workshop was held in Jersey on 22nd March 2011 and a number of representatives from the Jersey government, as well as outside experts including John Taylor from the TAS Partnership Ltd were present. This was primarily for Jersey government officers to formulate a position on taxi reform.
2. The workshop consisted of two main sessions. The morning session largely consisted of presentations of reports and surveys that included the aspirations of the government, the current structure of the industry, the performance of the industry, the use of new technology as well as an overview of the situation elsewhere.
3. The different presentations did identify a number of conflicts in the evidence. While the JCRA report states that that the taxi industry does not meet the needs of passengers in Jersey, the report on the quality performance of the industry indicated that passengers were generally satisfied with the service at the moment. Some of the aspirations identified, for example in relation to sustainable transport policy, look difficult to deliver in the context of significantly greater market freedom in the taxi sector. On the other hand, new technology is being introduced in the UK taxi industry where there is partial deregulation, with the introduction of stored value (decremental) and smart taxicards, automated vehicle booking, advance notice telephoning when the vehicle is close to arrival, SMS notification and so on.
4. Suggested approaches (deregulate / new technology) have been tried elsewhere in Europe but with inconsistent results. Some of the good examples of integration with the bus network to provide a service to more rural areas are in places with tight quantity control and a premium paid for licence plates, which indicates excess pricing. On the other hand, there are examples where innovation and investment in new technology have occurred in deregulated markets, instead of the expected rush to low cost / low quality. It was concluded that advances in technology on their own will not be a solution to the structural problems of the Jersey taxi industry. It is important to remember that a large part of the industry in Jersey and elsewhere consists of  self-employed individuals and that this group can be slow to change and may have limited capacity for significant investment. On the other hand, this structure can allow for stability, consistency and commitment to the industry.

5. The afternoon session identified a number of problems as well as potential ways forward for the Jersey taxi industry.
6. Among the problems identified among individual contributions at the workshop were[1]:

• Discrepancy in costs. The public are not aware that Restricted Taxis set their own charges, which differ from the Controlled (Rank) taxis, which are set by the Minister and are less expensive. Restricted taximeters are not formally calibrated and checked[2].

• Services to outer parishes/ remote areas and short journeys are problematic with taxi drivers unwilling to take them on as they are not lucrative.

• A long journey on the island (for example a round trip between Grouville and the airport) can cost up to £50.00 and appears to offer poor value for money.

• Telephone numbers of taxi booking operators are difficult to find, not even in the phone directory in some cases. There is no way that an average consumer will know whether they are booking a Restricted or a Controlled taxi and no advance notice of the expected cost of journey (although drivers will quote estimated fares if asked). Market research showed inconsistent estimates.

• Organised "sharing" is, in principle, illegal in Jersey. By contrast there are various forms of sharing available in GB and, whilst not mainstream, these facilities are promoted by transport or licensing authorities, as well as in some cases by operators. This could help during the times on a Friday and Saturday evening when there is a shortage of taxis and it could also help as regards rural taxis.

• General lack of integration with the bus network and related systems.

• Credit cards cannot be used on taxis for payment.

• New technology needs to be embraced, including booking on line. How to stimulate more rapid adoption and greater investment?

• Control of driver's hours – no evidence that there are any significant current problems with drivers driving beyond safe limits. However, this is raised by

the JTDA as a concern in an unregulated market, because, with more vehicles on the ground chasing the available market, drivers will perceive that they have to keep working longer to make whatever targets they have set themselves. Moreover, if part-time entrants are encouraged, then this will include people who are doing this on top of a full-time job which itself could involve driving or operating complex machinery i.e. their full-time job could have statutory operating limits, but these would not be breached because car driving is below standard pan-European drivers' hours regulations. For the same reason, it would be very difficult to introduce tachographs as a means of controlling this.

• There is a 15 year wait before a driver can join the "elite" Controlled Taxi group who are all owner operators in their own right. Jersey has a complicated and out-dated system of badges/ licence and plate issuing with a two tier system (as well as limousines which are a separate branch).

• The low use of real-time scheduling technology means that there is a significant level of empty taxi mileage which is bad for the industry and for the environment.

• Age profile of drivers – current system allows for rank drivers to continue past retirement doing a lower annual mileage and not working evenings / weekends. This reduces potentially available capacity. However, overcoming this is not a simple measure as an arbitrary age limit imposed on a self- employed profession would be subject to legal challenge. Current approaches to regulating this include:

An additional controlled licence when two older drivers each undertake

less than 50% of the annual average mileage

A requirement that even where a licence holder double shifts by

employing another driver, the licence holder is expected to provide a similar service themselves

• Relatively low levels of accessible vehicles and related skills training.

• Poor image – no consistent brand, particularly for rank taxis; mixed awareness that they are Jersey ambassadors'. Who promotes the taxi sector as a whole? [Note that JTDA has recently put forward proposals to address this issue which have been welcomed by TTS.]

• Poor communication between government and the industry' especially as regards planning the future.

• Problems with ranks:

Are there enough ranks?

Could they be better organised / located?

Awareness that they do get abused by private motorists (and

sometimes by taxi drivers themselves).

Should any significant new developments automatically include taxi

access (either a rank or a pull-in) and booking arrangements (wall- phone)?

If the taxi marshal scheme is a success, then how to ensure its further

development?

• Complexity / transparency of the regulated fares.

Does the public understand 192 yards as an increment?

Does the 07:00 threshold for introducing the daytime tariff reflect

today's working arrangements?

What is the basis for adjustments to the tariff?

• Do the red plates' provide the companies involved with excess power to take advantage of employed drivers? What control or restrictions can / should there be of taxi company activities – particularly their internal business models?

• There isn't a proper consumer representation system. It is unsurprising that taxi users do not know who to complain to.

• There appear to be some un- or under-regulated hotel and charity minibuses in operation. Is this significant?

• One innovation has been the development of carback' – a service which gets you and your car back home when you have had too much to drink. This does have a positive accident reduction impact. Should the service be regulated, and if so, how?

7. Critical points appear to be:

• Two tier system is not understood by the public

• Restricted fares are higher than they should be

• The two tier system + unregulated restricted taxi fares + lack of fares transparency results in some level of disadvantage for the public

• Relatively low levels of innovation and investment in new technology

• Undersupply / Failure to cover (both as regards ranks and pre-booked): Regular peaks

Short journeys in rural areas

One-off event peaks

8. One area that was discussed was possible subsidies for certain groups of users. These could include:

• Disabled or older people with Taxicards[3]

• Buses could be taken off low-use routes and taxis used instead. However, this would need to be done in a sub contracting arrangement with the current bus franchise holder for Jersey. An alternative would be for the bus operator to move into taxi operation – however, the UK experience of this approach has not been particularly positive.

• Rural Taxicards – providing a limited number of subsidised taxi journeys in areas where there is no adequate bus service. This follows the Rural Wheels example in Cumbria[4].

9. Aspirations for the Jersey taxi industry proposed at the workshop include:

• A Jersey Taxi service/ brand – taxis clearly identified perhaps with vinyl, removable, colour strips.

• Clearer focus on customer needs with all fares regulated.

• Publicising the tariffs in plain English so that the public are aware they will be charged for delays due to traffic, etc. – transparency.

• Taxi driver attitudes should consistently be positive / excellent as they are, in many cases (e.g. Airport, Harbour), the first point of contact and therefore ambassadors for the Island.

• Quality control NOT quantity control.

Make entrance' tests more stringent / tougher - pass all parts in one

go thereby "upping the bar".

• An "Out of Hours" service to provide early morning pick ups. 24 hour service, although potentially at a price.

• Increasing the number of rank taxis

• Introduction of a booking fee when fare control applies to all taxis, to compensate for the greater dead mileage' involved with telephone bookings, and the cost of the call centre.

• More wheelchair and disabled-friendly vehicles.

• Encourage the use of hybrid cars, low carbon emission vehicles.

4.4.11 Regulatory principles agreed were:

• Other things being equal, open competition maximises consumer benefit

• There should be a presumption against quantity control

• Regulation should be justified against clear measurable objectives

• Any regulation must be fair' across both incumbents and entrants to the industry.

11. Regulation should cover:

• Drivers

• Vehicles

• Fares

• Operators

• Booking centres

The above will include aspects of access to the industry'

12. A single tier model has the following advantages:

• Easy to understand

• All fares regulated (assume simpler tariff structure than current model)

• Simpler regulation

• Enables some common branding

• Reflects the fact that smartphone / hands-free technology is almost universal, this breaking down the distinction between rank and pre-booked

However, on the other hand:

• It discourages market segmentation, niche and premium services

• It may discourage price competition

• How do the overheads of organising pre-booking get covered if there is a single tariff? (May require separate booking fee.)

• Difficult to ensure adequate supply of accessible vehicles and MPVs in the system unless you go 100% wheelchair accessible.

• How to restrict the number of taxis trying to access limited rank space?

13. It is difficult to predict how the market will react to such a model – particularly as regards antisocial / rural provision. If this really is less economically attractive, then a single tariff will not, on its own, stimulate any such provision. That would come either through:

• Market innovation which manages to reduce the opportunity costs – but this is not controllable or specifiable by the regulator

• State financial incentives – e.g. rural route subsidy

• Industry commitment to ensure universal coverage. But this will only happen if:

There is an industry' which could make that commitment and make it

stick including to new entrants

There is a trade-off benefit somewhere else in the system

14. It is assumed that a flood of entrants into the industry, which it is acknowledged could be distorting, would be avoided by increasing quality control thresholds at the same time as quantity control thresholds are removed. However, this needs to be carefully thought through. Whilst there is evidence that quality control thresholds can be effective in preventing a free- for-all – for example, there is no quantity control for London Hackney Cabs (black taxis), entry to the market is constrained by the requirement for drivers to have significant awareness of London geography and facilities (The Knowledge[5]') - it is not obvious how this could translate into Jersey.
15. It was clear that the current position is unacceptable so the option of the status quo is ruled out. The favoured option from the Workshop was to move to a single tier model, but with significant quality controls. A critical point for discussion with the industry is the extent to which consolidation' is required to enable the industry to meet the aspirations in respect of:

• new technology

• branding and marketing

• guaranteed universal coverage.

4.4.17 Consolidation raises issues about:

• The form of consolidation and the matching regulatory controls e.g.

Should there be a maximum number of licences allowed for any one

company?[6]

Should there be a single industry-owned infrastructure and marketing

entity which would manage central issues?

• The impact on existing owner-drivers and how any changes will be fair to them.

This will require significant industry consultation.

4.4.17  The first steps would be to

• Develop and complete this Internal' Report

• Comprehensive consultation, including:

Officers and the Minister to speak to the various taxi companies, who

will need adequate and reasonable notice of any changes.

Consult with drivers in both codes, brief them on the benefits of a one

tier system (this will primarily benefit the restricted cabs) and establish driver/ company relationships

• Develop enhanced quality controls, including skills training and the Code of Conduct

• Remove quantitative restrictions, thereby encouraging new drivers to join the industry but allowing the market to balance out the numbers of taxis in operation. Further consideration is required as to whether this should be undertaken at one go or on a phased basis – the latter appears more likely at this stage.

5. Accessibility

1. Accessibility is recognised as an issue that needs to be addressed on Jersey, but which is not adequately dealt with in current taxi regulation.
2. Jersey.com lists accessible taxis on Jersey:[7]

"A selection of wheelchair accessible and larger taxi and cabs in Jersey.

Luxicabs: Tel: 01534 887000 Six cabs, converted to take a wheelchair. Pre- bookable depending on day and time.

Citicabs: Tel: 01534 499999 One cab available. Pre-bookable.

Andy Tague: Tel: 01534 758476 or 07797 721476 A specially adapted vehicle with raised back and viewing windows, allows wheelchairs and some scooters to be wheeled into the rear of the vehicle. This Fiat Doblo can accommodate 3 passengers and a wheelchair.

Rachel's Car: Tel: 721343 or 07797711193 A Fiat Doblo which has been purpose built for the carriage of a wheel chair user plus 3 passengers and the driver. Available free of charge, but an insurance excess cash deposit will be required. Booking essential."

3. The Jersey Web Disabled Access Information[8] includes the following on taxis:

"The first three listed are taxis with the proper access, meaning the wheelchair can go in the back, without having to be folded up.

David Rankin

Tel: 744897 or 741142

A converted Vauxhall Astra, which can take the person in the wheelchair plus two passengers. No evening bookings which involve late night returns.

Flying Dragon

Tel: 888333

Runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. One taxi with space for wheelchair, and a passenger.

Luxicabs

Tel: 727251 (24 hours)

They have one black cab converted to take a wheelchair. 24 hours service.

All Public taxis from Broad Street, the Weighbridge, Snow Hill, Airport and Harbour have space in their boot for a wheelchair depending on luggage."

It will be noted that these two sets of information are not consistent or comprehensive.

4. Jersey recognises and welcomes visitors with disabilities:

"Jersey makes every effort to ensure that disabled visitors' experience of the Island is as comfortable and enjoyable as possible. Most of its visitor attractions, and many of its hotels and guesthouses, are wheelchair-friendly, and facilities for the hard of hearing and visually impaired are widely available. A Shopmobility scheme, providing self-propelled scooters or wheelchairs for hire, operates in St Helier and at Durrell Wildlife and Jersey War Tunnels."[9]

5. There is relatively little information available concerning this issue in Jersey, but we believe from UK experience that it will be significant and that changes in population demographics will make it an increasingly important issue. In the

UK, there is a significant level of community-based accessible transport provision for older and disabled provision, mostly in the form of dial-a-ride and dial-a-bus services[10], but buttressed by volunteers using cars on the one hand[11], and taxicards[12] or taxi voucher[13] schemes on the other. There is little evidence of anything equivalent in Jersey which suggests that taxis could have a more important role to play here.

6. The recent releases of data from the 2011 census do not contain any information about the number if people with disabilities. We have therefore used disability incidence rates from the UK Office of National Statistics (and its predecessor) and applied these to Jersey age and gender cohort data to produce some estimates of locomotor disability, shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Estimates of Locomotor Disability in Jersey[14]

Severity  Details  No. in Category  Jersey

5. to 2.5 Cannot walk 400 yards without stopping or severe discomfort

• Can only walk up and down a flight of stairs by going sideways

or one step at a time

• Cannot bend down to sweep up something from the floor and  2,150 straighten up again

• Can only walk down a flight of 12 stairs if holds on to a support (doesn't need a rest)

3.0 to 4.0 Cannot walk 200 yards without stopping or severe discomfort

• Can only walk up and down a flight of 12 stairs if holds on or takes a rest

• Often needs to hold on to something to keep balance  2,950

• Has fallen three or more times in the last year

• Cannot bend down to pick something up from the floor and straighten up again

4.5 to 6.5 Cannot bend down far enough to reach knees and straighten up

again

1,950

• Cannot walk 50 yards without stopping or severe discomfort

• Cannot walk up and down a flight of 12 stairs

7.1 to 9.5 Always needs to hold on to something to keep balance

• Has fallen 12 or more times in the last year  2,600

• Can only walk a few steps without stopping or severe discomfort

• Cannot walk up and down one step

10.0 to 11.5 Cannot walk at all  350 TOTAL  10,000

Severity  Details  No. in Category  Jersey

ALL at 3.0 or above  7,850 Total Population (2011 Census)  97,857

%age with Locomotor Disability  10.21% Realistic Market for Door to Door Accessible Service Note 1 2,347

Notes: 1: Market for Door to Door takes overall Locomotor Disability figure and reduces by 68.5% reflecting those able to walk 100 yards, those unwilling to travel and regular car users.

7. The above estimates are roughly consistent with Jersey surveys in 1999 and 2008 which gave figures of 9% and 7% respectively reporting a limiting long- term illness or disability that limited their daily activities a lot.[15]
8. Transport & Technical Services has recognised that there as an issue here for taxis. Some 12 or so years ago, Home Affairs and Public Services Committee decided to increase the number of rank (controlled) taxicab licences by 20 but rather than just give the licences to the next 20 drivers on the waiting list, it was stipulated that the licences should only be granted to those on the list willing to provide a wheelchair accessible vehicle and who would sign an agreement to continue to provide and operate such a vehicle. So there are more accessible taxis than would appear from the publicity cited above, but there doesn't appear to be a very effective strategy for obtaining the benefits from this or to ensure an appropriate mix of vehicles to match different disability needs.
9. There is significant experience from the UK in terms of improving transport accessibility. Without rehearsing the arguments, we assume that this is a desirable policy objective for Jersey and should be taken into account in any reform.

Challenges to the Current Position  5

1. JCRA

1. The Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA) was set up by the States of Jersey in 2001 under the Competition Regulatory Authority (Jersey) Law 2001 as an independent body, accountable to the Minister for Economic Development, with responsibility for promoting competition and consumer interests through economic regulation and competition law. As regards competition law, it is responsible for administering and enforcing the Competition (Jersey) Law 2005. The JCRA also advises the Minister and other States Departments from time to time on issues relating to competition and economic regulation.
2. In December, 2010, the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority published a position paper – "Taxi regulation in Jersey". Whilst this has advisory status only, the conclusions of the report are direct enough to require the Minister to give the report serious consideration and to take its analysis into account when considering future regulatory options. It should be noted that JCRA does not suggest in the position paper that they identified any behaviour that could raise a reasonable cause to suspect an infringement of The Competition (Jersey) Law 2005.
3. In general terms, this Law outlaws any agreements, business practices or conduct that have a damaging effect on competition in Jersey. More specifically, it outlaws:

1. Arrangements between undertakings (including self-employed individuals) which hinder competition, to an appreciable extent, or are intended to do so
2. The abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position in the market.

4. As regards arrangements' that could be outlawed, this would include:

• Direct or indirect price fixing (e.g. common tariff for non-regulated fares)

• Limiting supply (e.g. agreeing a maximum number of vehicles that will be on the road at any one time)

• Sharing markets (e.g. agreeing to allocate different market segments to particular operators)

• Discriminatory pricing so as to disadvantage other parties (e.g. charging more for radio circuit participation to new applicants)

• Adding non-commercial clauses to contracts.

Note that the common tariff for controlled taxis does not fall foul of the above because this is set by the Minister, not through an arrangement between undertakings.

5. Exemptions to the above can be made. There are three approaches to this:

1. Individual exemptions made by the JCRA in response to an application, which must show how the exemption would (inter alia) promote technical progress and benefit consumers
2. Block exemptions, made by the Minister to cover a whole class of arrangements, following consultation with JCRA, which would (inter alia) promote technical progress and benefit consumers
3. Small undertakings exemptions, also made by the Minister, but not to the extent that an arrangement would involve price fixing, limiting supply or market sharing.

6. Agreements that do not have an appreciable effect on competition' will not be caught. JCRA has published guidelines as to how it interprets this, but generally it will not apply where the combined market share of the parties involved does not exceed 25%, except as regards price fixing.
7. As regards abuse of market position', there is a two stage test:

1. The undertaking must be in a dominant position'
2. It must have abused that position.

In general terms, dominance will require a market share of 40% or more, and abuse includes the behaviour identified in 5.1.4 above.

8. Points that arise from the above that will be worth bearing in mind include:

1. The position of the 4 largest companies. Whilst these operate within the restricted taxi sector, in our view the relevant market' should be the taxi sector as a whole. However, between them they do control access to a significant proportion of remote booking facilities and driver guidance. The results of the market research do suggest a common reluctance to provide short journeys in rural areas.
2. The Jersey Taxi Drivers Association – this could count as an undertaking' within the Competition Law, depending upon the relationship between the Association and its members, and JCRA has published specific guidance on this issue, particularly examining:

Exchange of price information – caught where this leads to price

coordination – in the JTDA case, because its members are drivers of controlled taxis working to the statutory tariff, this would only apply to the extent that it deterred discounts

Exchange of non-price (i.e. market related) information – unlikely to be

caught

Restrictions on advertising – no evidence of this

Restrictive codes of conduct or technical standards – no evidence of

this

Restrictive membership – no evidence of this

9. The JCRA has made it clear that it will act to tackle any cartels. Whilst no evidence has been presented to us that any cartelisation exists in this sector in Jersey, the fact is that taxi and private hire cartels certainly do appear in GB, particularly as regards bidding for local authority contracts. Consequently, it will be important, in considering alterations to the taxi regulatory framework, that these do not facilitate agreements on:

• Supply levels

• Fares

• Discounts

• Credit terms

• Restricting use of technology

• Which customers to serve

• Which geographical areas to serve

• Who should win a contract

unless these are determined by the Minister, or there is an exemption under the Competition Law.

2. JCRA Position Paper

Conclusion and Recommendations

1. The position paper concludes that "the current system of taxi regulation in Jersey is not working in consumers' best interests". The primary basis for this conclusion is a finding that taxi fares in Jersey are higher than elsewhere in Britain, including the Isle of Man.
2. There are four recommendations:

1. Remove quantity restrictions.

2. Qualitative restrictions should be proportionate – however, the JCRA does not identify any current quality restrictions it considers disproportionate, other than to state that "the need to maintain drivers' incomes" should not be a legitimate policy objective.
3. Increase fares transparency – including:

setting out how the Minister determines rank taxi fares and

requiring restricted taxi services to explain the basis of their fares to

potential passengers in advance so as to facilitate consumer choice.

4. Maintain government-controlled maximum fares for rank taxis.

3. Much of the JCRA analysis is indisputable. This includes:

• Lack of clarity / predictability about how fares for controlled taxis are determined by the Minister[1] – this makes taxi business planning and marketing uncertain

• The complexity of the controlled fares tariff, with four different fare structures – this works to deter consumers from using taxis because it is hard to predict how much they will pay

• Lack of price transparency and effective consumer choice within restricted taxi services – this results in the paradoxical position where in the absence of fare control, restricted taxis command higher fares than controlled taxis. This is prima facie evidence that quantity control is restricting competition to the disadvantage of consumers.

• The structure of the tariffs is too complex to enable potential users to predict what the fare will be and/or to compare services. There should be some standard unit (comparable to £ per kg in supermarkets) that enables effective price comparison.

• The level of competition within the restricted taxi sector is suppressed, with the individual taxi licence holders with 115 vehicles working for only 6 taxi companies, which also hold the remaining 50 company licences. (At the time of the JCRA report, there were 165 restricted taxi licences in issue.) Two of these 6 companies are very small, controlling only 9 vehicles between them. Entry into the market is suppressed because of the very restricted creation of new, additional licences which means that individuals who want to provide a taxi service can only do so through existing companies with spare licences. This restriction on market entry acts both to enable excess pricing and to stifle innovation.

Comparison to Guernsey

4. Guernsey is stated by JCRA to have a similar system to Jersey i.e. there are strict quantity controls in place. However, JCRA then cites many differences between Jersey and Guernsey:

• Licensing is done in consultation with the Guernsey Taxi Owners' Federation

• The Guernsey Environment Department (GED) has conducted an unmet demand and supply survey'

• Majority of price increases track RPI

• No distinction between rank and controlled taxis, but there is a more usual taxi / private hire distinction (but fewer than 10% of fleet are private hire.)

• Minimum annual mileage (25,000) requirement for standard plates

• Additional licence category (green plates) for drivers above retirement age with lower (13,000) minimum annual mileage

• Additional licence category (red plates) allowing peak time use only – no issues have ever been made in this category.[2]

• Applicant could get a plate if they demonstrate unmet demand – in practice this is not practicable for an individual applicant so no new plates are issued

• Deliberate intervention to prevent company domination: no company may hold more than 25 licences and no more than 50 company licences in total (40% of taxi licences)

• Taxi companies must provide a 24 hour service

• A limited market allowed for trading licence plates.

5. We believe that these differences make comparison between the two systems difficult.

Comparison to Isle of Man

6. Again, although there is quantity control in the Isle of Man, their system is also different from that in Jersey:

• Similar balance to Guernsey between rank taxis (234) and private hire vehicles (39)

• Unmet demand surveys

• Maximum fares set for rank taxis, using meters

• PHV fares must be agreed in advance with the passenger; a meter can be used but this is sealed and calibrated to use the taxi tariff

• Applicant could get a plate if they demonstrate unmet demand – in practice this is not practicable for an individual applicant so no new plates are issued

• Zonal licensing and operating areas for rank taxis (Douglas, airport + 2 other areas) although consideration is being given to moving to an all-island system.

Comparison to Isle of Wight and UK

7. The regulatory system on the Isle of Wight is typical for the UK [more correctly for GB as Northern Ireland has a different system], in that quantity controls have been abolished.

• Authority sets maximum fares for rank taxis

• No fare control for private hire vehicles

• 172 rank taxis; 58 PHV

Comparative availability

8. Benchmarking the number of restricted and controlled taxis (taxis and private hire vehicles outside Jersey) available in different locations against the population in each licensing area (i.e. taxis per head of population) leads the JCRA to conclude that "overall taxi density is not worse in Jersey than elsewhere".
9. However, it is then suggested that one would expect a higher density of taxis in Jersey than, say, the Isle of Wight because of:

• High activity levels at the airport and harbour

• Jersey's status as a financial centre with affluent individuals used to travelling by taxi

• Higher GDP in Jersey than in the UK. "Therefore, one may assume a positive correlation between GDP per capita and taxi density."

This is then used to justify the conclusion that "taxi density in Jersey is sub- optimal".

10. Our view, having looked carefully at the situation in the UK, it that this analysis is mistaken, because in the UK there is significant growth in taxi and, especially, private hire car use by lower income individuals and families. The reason for this growth is that these individuals and families do not have the income needed to run their own car. Taxi density in Jersey may be sub- optimal but we believe this is not for the reasons cited by the JCRA.

Fare Comparisons

11. JCRA use published tariffs in the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Isle of Wight and elsewhere in GB to compare fares for various length journeys – 9.5km, 2 miles and 5 miles. These show that fares in Jersey are higher than most other locations, especially for night time journeys.
12. There are various caveats to be aware of:

• London should be excluded from the analysis, for reasons set out by the JCRA – any taxi tariff needs to contain a fixed', a time' and a mileage' component. In London, because of much lower road speeds, time becomes more important than elsewhere and the tariff needs to reflect this. Thus although in London passengers may be paying more per mile, they are getting more time from the taxi driver for this money.

• Different supplementary charges can distort results e.g. Isle of Man's £1 airport supplement.

• Average or typical journey lengths will differ between different areas.

13. More fundamentally, what is being compared is, in almost all cases, the taxi tariff that has been set down by the regulatory authorities. So if the JCRA's conclusion that taxi fares in Jersey are relatively high is correct, then this is an issue for the Minister rather than the market.
14. JCRA acknowledges that its analysis misses out a critical component – a proper comparison of unregulated market fares – those for restricted taxis in Jersey and private hire vehicles elsewhere. They attempt to fill this gap by trawling for special fixed price offers' for specific journeys in GB, but the sample size is far too small to reach any definitive conclusions. As an example, Brighton to Gatwick is cited as available for half the rate per kilometre as would be charged in Jersey. However, this is not a realistic comparison as it reflects, amongst other things:

• The extremely high average road speed between Brighton and Gatwick which means that the mileage component can be lower to cover time and fixed costs

• The need to compete with a convenient, frequent and high speed rail service.

15. Following the above analyses, JCRA then makes what we believe is the most critical point to this part of their report, which is a finding that restricted taxi fares in Jersey are some 30% higher than controlled taxi fares. Whilst some may disagree with the precise figure, we have not heard anyone disagree with the finding that restricted taxi fares are higher. This contrasts markedly with the position in GB where private hire fares are on average lower than the taxi tariff. This is very significant because it suggests that in a market where fares

are not regulated, quantity control correlates with higher fares. There is no evidence that this reflects any difference in service quality and in the absence of any other justification goes a long way to support the JCRA conclusion that quantity control, at least as regards restricted taxis, is not benefiting consumers.

Other competition issues

16. The JCRA report touches on a variety of other issues which are potentially relevant but which do not appear in the earlier analysis:

• Whether taxi users are particularly price responsive if the taxi journey is only a small component of a longer journey (particularly applies to airport and harbour journeys)

• Whether the fact that there is affluence in Jersey results in lower concern about affordability

• Whether taxi fares and availability may reflect the availability of convenient alternative means of getting around (e.g. a scheduled bus service), especially at night and in rural areas (beyond walking and cycling distance). The answer is obviously Yes' and this does have significant implications for the Minister who also has responsibilities in respect of ensuring an adequate and convenient provision of omnibus services'. It is relevant that bus services in Jersey are cheap with a simple £1.10 or £1.70 fare scale. It really is important to remember that taxis not only compete within their market, they also compete with alternative modes, not least of which is the private car.

• Related to this is the availability, convenience and cost of car parking, especially for airport journeys.

• Not enough is known of the interaction between controlled and restricted taxis – particularly the extent to which controlled taxis do take advance bookings and therefore compete directly with restricted taxis.

17. The JCRA report makes the point that trading of plates or licences is not allowed in Jersey. Where there is quantity control and trading is allowed, then the transfer value of plates would provide an estimate of the additional cost that consumers are paying as a result of the restricted supply. This can be converted into annual or per trip/mile terms through reverse discounted cash flow.
18. Finally, there is an argument to the effect that unmet demand for night-time taxis does not mean that there is a need for premium tariffs because the absence of night-time supply could mean that drivers are already earning sufficient income from their daytime work so as not to be forced into night- time work. It is suggested that new entrants would be attracted into this

market. However, this clearly raises issues about the balance between full- time and part-time work and double-shifting.

19. Although earlier on in the JCRA report it is stated firmly that maintaining drivers' incomes should not be a consideration for the Minister, the fact is that investment, on-the ground quality and market stability will be influenced by the level of drivers' incomes. Private hire services in GB do suffer from problems in these areas precisely because there are very low barriers to entry. This has led to growth in part-time drivers who provide additional peak capacity on Friday and Saturday nights, but who are doing this work on the back of other jobs. There are some suggestions that it also correlates with an increase in touting and unlicensed operation at these peak times, because of the high proportion of the income available from part-time work that would go on paying licence fees. An impact for the regulatory authorities is a requirement for greater expenditure on monitoring and policing.
20. The JCRA report contains no reference to activity levels either in Jersey or in any of the other places that are used for comparison. Thus there is no consideration of how frequently people use taxis, when and why they use them, nor of trends in the use of taxis over time. GB saw significant growth over 25 years between 1975 and 2000 (see Figure J) which underpinned the growth in licensed taxis and private hire vehicles (see Figures in Chapter 6). The average number of taxi trips made in 1997/99 was three times as high as in 1975/76. The number of trips made and the average distance travelled both increased until the late 1980s, followed by a decline in the recession of the early 1990s. Usage then increased again and the 1997/99 level was higher than that recorded in 1989/91, averaging 12 taxi/PHV trips per person per year, or 1.1 per cent of all trips made by individuals. Since then, taxi use has remained static or declined slightly. However, this needs to be seen in the context of a general fall in trip making by any mode. The high point was in 1989/91 when an average of 1,091 trips were made annually by each person. By 2009, this was down to 973, an 11% decline (although average journey length increased). During this time, taxi/minicab use has remained static, so it now constitutes a higher proportion of journeys than previously. Note also that these statistics only count taxi trips where this is the main component of a journey – they exclude use of taxis as a feeder to other modes.
21. The point is that the demand for taxis is obviously a critical issue underpinning any particular level of taxi / private hire density and also in stimulating competitive pressure and innovation – investment being more likely to occur in a growing market.

Figure J: England & Wales – Trends in Taxi Use[3]

Taxi/minicab - Trips per person per year

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

76 78 9 1 3 5 6 8 0 00 5/ 7/ 8/ 9/ / / /7 /8 /82 /8 /84 /8 /8 /87 /8 /89 /9 /91 /92 /93 /94 /96 /98 /

6 8 0 1 2 3 5 7 00 00 00

78 80 81 83 85 87 89 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2 2006/ 2 2 200 975 977 979/80 982 984 994/95 999

1. 1976/771 19 1 19 19 1 19 1 19 198 19 198 19 199 199 199 199 1 199 1996/97199 1998/991 2000/01

22. Underlining the need for care in making comparisons between Jersey and GB and the need to know a bit more about how taxis are used in Jersey, the following provides a bit more detail about how taxis (including PHVs) were used in GB in 2003[4]:

• Women use taxis more than men, in every age group

• Taxi use is greatest among young people – particularly young women aged 16-20

• Taxis are used more when no car is available in the household

• People in low income groups make most taxi trips

• Taxi use is lowest in rural areas and highest in the former metropolitan counties (more than in London)

• The four main reasons for taxi use were:

Going out with friends

Visiting friends at home

Shopping

Commuting.

• PHV trips were longer than taxi trips (6.3 miles compared with 4.1 miles).

3. Taxi Drivers Association Response

1. In March 2011, the Jersey Taxi Drivers' Association (JTDA) produced a detailed response to the JCRA report and a contribution to the continuing debate around taxi reform. We believe that the JTDA makes many reasonable and useful points. The JTDA represents 116 taxi drivers.
2. Points made by the JTDA include:

• Querying the detail of the JCRA analysis regarding whether fares in Jersey are notably higher than elsewhere. We have (see previously) some sympathy with this view.

• Suggesting that trend analysis (% increases) needs to be taken over a longer period and also that recent above RPI increases are explainable by reference to exceptional fuel price increases. This is true – however, it does serve to confirm JCRA's point that the basis for fares adjustment is not transparent.

• Stating that the basis for fare increases has not been consistent and is not regular – this again confirms JCRA's point that the basis for fares adjustment is not transparent.

• Detailed consideration is given to the fact that both average wages and the cost of living in Jersey are higher than in the UK and therefore benchmarking fares against those in the UK is unfair and unrealistic. Again, we have some sympathy with this view.

• JCRA calculations on taxi density do not support any suggestion that Jersey is poorly served across the board. We agree with this view.

3. A major issue for JTDA is to challenge the JCRA's statement that maintaining drivers' incomes should not be a public policy objective. JTDA make a number of points:

• Rank taxi drivers have taken on reasonable financial commitments under the current regime;

• There is no evidence that rank taxi drivers are earning excess wages;

• Taxi work has been steadily decreasing due to the decline in tourism (average taxi mileage is stated to have declined from 25,000 in 2004 to 21,000 in 2009);

• If the real problem is with "Private Hire" (restricted taxi) prices then that is where intervention should take place - the rank taxi sector should not be penalised.

4. JTDA suggest that the fact that Private Hire' fares are higher than controlled taxi fares reflects the fact that they face higher costs. However, experience elsewhere is that advance booking can reduce resource downtime and there is a consistent pattern of lower fares for Private Hire compared to rank taxi fares set by the regulatory authorities.
5. There is some detail setting out unfair competitive practice on behalf of the restricted taxi sector, particularly as regards use of ranks and a suggestion that because the public do not understand the difference between controlled and restricted taxis, they are clearly vulnerable to being overcharged.
6. They make the point that if the two forms of taxi were to be merged into a single category, then the current taxi rank capacity would need to be significantly increased to cope. At present, restricted taxis wait in a variety of places, such a hotel forecourts, including illegal parking – in future, they would be competing for rank spaces.
7. They suggest that JCRA should have given more consideration to the scale economics of running a restricted taxi company and suggest that a minimum of twenty licences is required to enable a company to operate a full administrative and communications suite.
8. Finally, the JTDA confirms the failure of a previous attempt (20 years ago) to use taxis to run a late night bus style service, but states that they have arranged to meet Connex (the bus operator) to discuss possible cooperation / coordination.
9. In conclusion, JTDA recognises that improvements can be made to the current arrangements and is not simply defending the status quo. JTDA does not support the current controlled / restricted system and suggests that a two tier taxi / private hire system, as seen in UK, would be far more straightforward for the public to understand. Where restricted taxis accept immediate hires (hailed in the street, pick up at Airport or Harbour ranks) then the controlled fare should apply, because the public has no effective means of exercising choice.

Experience Elsewhere  6

1. UK Experience

1. In Great Britain, all authorities have different licences for private hire (where taxis are pre booked) and hackney carriage, where taxis are hired at a rank or hailed in the street. In many cases there are more regulations on the latter than the former, particularly in terms of vehicle quality and access for disabled persons.
2. Prior to 1985, hackney carriage taxi numbers were restricted with the numbers frozen unless new applicants could demonstrate unmet demand. As a result, in many locations, trading in hackney carriage licences took place with significant premiums paid (many thousands of pounds). Hackney carriage fares were also regulated.
3. By contrast private hire numbers and fares were not restricted and in some cases these operations were not even licensed.
4. In 1985 there were legislative changes (Transport Act 1985) that encouraged additional taxi licences to be granted. There is now a presumption that local authorities should issue hackney licences on demand to new entrants unless they can demonstrate that there is no unmet demand for taxis i.e. the onus of proof has been reversed.
5. The majority of local authority areas in the UK have now fully or partly deregulated hackney carriage taxi licensing in their area by removing quantity restrictions on the number of taxis allowed to operate. However, they have retained control over maximum fares as well as quality restrictions, with drivers and vehicles often being subject to a range of tests and in some cases mandatory training.
6. The change to unrestricted entry in terms of numbers into the hackney carriage market has not led to any major disruptions or had any impact on fare levels in most areas of the UK. There has been some shift from private hire to hackney carriage use in particular authorities where the number of hackney carriages had previously been restricted, but overall both increased following 1985.
7. The increase in licensed hackney taxis is shown in Figure K. The fact that the increase in hackney licensing was matched by an increase in private hire licensing in the period following the change in legislation in 1985 is shown by a comparison of Figure L and Figure M

Figure K: Licensed Taxis (Hackney Only) – England & Wales

Number of Licensed Taxis - England & Wales

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002 04 05/0606/07

2003/2004/2005 20

Figure L: Trends in Hackney Licensing following Transport Act 1985[1]

Figure M: Trends in Private Hire Vehicles (England & Wales) following 1985 Transport Act

8. In many major cities, purpose built taxis are the norm for hackney carriage use and these normally offer full wheelchair accessibility. Additional features of the taxi industry in the UK include the use of taxibuses and other unconventional services.
9. In London the number of hackney carriages has never been limited but drivers are obliged to take a very comprehensive test on route knowledge and London geography (The Knowledge) which often requires months/years of training and which acts as an effective barrier to free entry. Private hire vehicles (known as minicabs in London) are deregulated as far as numbers are concerned but have quality standards lower than those for hackney carriage taxis. Private hire operators are also licensed in London as they are outside.

2. Ireland

1. Freedom of entry for taxis in Ireland was permitted in 2000. Prior to the reform there were restrictions on the number of taxis in all areas of Ireland and taxis were in short supply in many areas, particularly in Dublin and at peak periods (late evenings at weekends). Taxi licences were sold for over 150,000 prior to 2000. Small numbers of additional licences were issued between 1993 and 1999 but these had little overall impact in a time of rising demand.

2. Prior to the reform there had also been an increase in hackney (private hire in the Irish terminology) numbers so that these had increased from 3,400 in 1993 to over 9,000 in 1999.
3. The reform was caused unintentionally by a court challenge over a plan that would have issued additional licences to existing holders, which identified that the state had no power to apply quantity control. Almost overnight taxi numbers were deregulated and consequently the numbers increased from 4,200 in 2000 to over 16,000 in 2007. There was a related decline in hackney numbers of over 50%, but the total combined taxi and hackney numbers increased by 50% due to the taxi increase being significantly greater than the hackney decline.
4. In order to maintain quality standards, a National Taxi Regulator was established, but this did not take effect until 2004, leaving a regulatory vacuum during the period from the sudden deregulation in 2000. Traditionally quality controls and licensing, as well as fares, had been the responsibility of local authorities but the standards of quality control varied widely from authority to authority.
5. A nationwide maximum fare structure was introduced in 2006, replacing local authority control over fares. However, taxi drivers are limited to commencing journeys in the area (generally the county) for where they hold their licence.
6. Earnings for taxi drivers fell significantly after deregulation and are now well below the industrial average and just above the minimum wage.
7. The hours worked per week also increased, from approximately 52 to 72. There has been a growth of part time working in the taxi industry while previously it had been mainly a full time occupation.

3. France

1. Almost all areas of France are highly regulated with restrictions similar to Jersey in terms of numbers. New licences are rarely granted and there appear to be no locations in France where there is open entry into the taxi market.
2. Paris, for example, currently has a limit of just over 15,000 taxi licences and over 6,000 names on the waiting list for a licence. With new licences being granted at a rate of, at most, a few hundred in a year, a person putting their name on the waiting list at present can wait several decades before a licence would be given to them.
3. As a result taxi licences are sold at very high prices. The average price in France was 100,000 and in Paris this increases to 180,000 (2007). The price in Nice was even higher, at 300,000.

4. Private hire vehicles are very limited and the actions of the Paris municipal authorities have served to limit the pre booked market to conventional taxis within the 15,000 limit.
5. The result of the limit on taxi numbers is that there is a shortage of taxis. As a result taxis in Paris tend to be used more by upper income persons, particularly employees of businesses who are prepared to pay for a premium membership of a taxi booking service to guarantee a taxi within a short time.
6. Taxi fares are regulated by the French government and there are variations by times of day and whether the journey is in the Paris region or outside of it.
7. Some areas of France appear to have a more collaborative approach and often work in connection with local public transport providers. However this is often a function of the local public transport providers contracting out some services to taxis (for example services to lower demand areas or for disabled users) than initiatives of the taxi industry itself.

4. The Netherlands

1. The Dutch taxi market has always operated under a single tier regulatory regime, where there were no divisions between street taxi (equivalent to hackney carriage in the UK) and pre booked or contracted taxis. The street taxi (from rank or hailed) market is only significant in the four largest cities.
2. Prior to taxi regulatory reform in 2000 the policy had included objectives of avoiding wasteful competition and providing a reasonable income for drivers. Licences were valid in one of 27 different regions of The Netherlands and each region had its own quantity restrictions, quality controls and fares. As in other countries where quantity restrictions exist, licences were sold as a means of entry into the taxi industry.
3. In 2000, taxis in The Netherlands were deregulated. The 27 regional taxi areas were abolished so that drivers could pick up passengers anywhere in The Netherlands. Quantity restrictions were abolished and a national maximum fare structure, at a level higher than the former average fares, was introduced. In addition herring bone' taxi ranks were supposed to be introduced so that passengers could compare fares from different taxis at each rank.
4. However, since 2000 taxi fares have generally increased at a faster rate than inflation. This has largely been due to taxi journeys being charged at or close to the new maximum fare instead of the former average fare.
5. In the street taxi market, choice' is generally not available as passengers are not able to compare prices at a rank. Herringbone taxi ranks were abandoned where they were implemented, largely due to hostility from drivers who join ranks in the expectation of getting a fare. As taxi passengers have been

obliged to take the first taxi in a rank (due largely to pressure from other drivers) their actual ability to compare fares was limited or nonexistent.

6. Additionally in The Netherlands, passengers can also not get prices from a taxi call centre (taxicentral). This is due to their inability to quote a price as it is based on the tariff of the individual taxi.
7. Differences between Amsterdam and the remainder of the country have become evident, mainly due to the different markets. In non urban areas contract work dominates, with companies such as Connexxion having a large share of this work. In larger cities, by contrast, journeys booked there and then by phone or through on-street hire are more common.
8. Taxis in Amsterdam have a poor reputation for over charging and poor driver behaviour and this is partly attributed to drivers from other areas converging on Amsterdam at weekends (with consequent lack of local knowledge) as well as lack of enforcement at key ranks. Problems include not using the taxi meter as well a refusal to undertake short journeys.
9. Overall, deregulation has not achieved lower fares (with no fares competition due to the nature of the market, particularly in terms of journeys that are not pre booked) or improved quality. Taxi use also declined as fares increased and service quality declined (particularly from street taxis).
10. More taxis have entered the market but there have been few examples of innovations or improved customer service. The Treintaxi scheme was an initiative of NS (Netherlands Railways) and has never applied to the larger cities. A separate NS Zonetaxi scheme (which included Utrecht) was tried from mid 2009 to mid 2010 at a higher fare than the Treintaxi.
11. There have been changes proposed in the regulations that are hoped to alleviate some of the problems noted, as legislative amendments were introduced in 2010 that were planned to take effect in 2011. These notably include some reregulation and direct municipal control in the four largest cities.

5. Australia

1. Australian taxis are regulated by their respective states. There has been a series of reviews since the late 1990s and the majority of these have recommended some form of removal of quantity restrictions. However, only one area, the Northern Territory, removed these restrictions and this took effect in 1999.
2. In order to provide some compensation for those who had purchased licences the territory compensated existing licence holders as part of a buyback programme. This was to be partly financed by new annual licences that any

person could buy at a cost of A$16,000. The compensation scheme proved to be extremely expensive for the State.

3. The initial result of the deregulation was to increase the supply of taxis, notably in Darwin (the largest town) but quality suffered as there were insufficient quality controls on taxis. Drivers also complained that their income reduced following deregulation.
4. Following a review by a newly elected territorial government in 2001 a new regulatory structure was implemented in 2003, which led to increased fares and improved quality standards, notably increased driver training and testing as well as regulations concerning the vehicles used. Freedom of entry was maintained after a moratorium that lasted from 2001 to 2003.
5. Elsewhere in Australia, taxi numbers remain limited and are strictly regulated by state authorities, who also control fares and quality standards. Consequently the cost of a taxi licence traded between operators in major urban areas ranges from A$148,000 (Hobart) to A$500,000 (Melbourne).
6. Some areas (such as Melbourne) have issued new taxi licences to meet increased demand, but these have been issued by public tender and there is no imminent change to the model where licences are held by investors who often have no day to day involvement in the taxi industry.
7. A major justification for retaining the limit on taxi numbers in states where this is still in place is to maintain driver incomes and this is stated in, among other documents, the Victoria fact sheet when additional licences were most recently introduced. [2]

6. USA

1. The situation in the USA broadly parallels that in Australia whereby the overwhelming majority of municipalities (who generally regulate taxis in their respective areas) have maintained limits on taxi numbers.
2. These limits often date back to the 1930's, as an effort to control taxi numbers at a time of economic depression, when many new entrants came into the market and flooded the streets of some major cities. The number of taxis per head of population, as well as the quality controls, varies widely between different cities.
3. In addition to limits on overall taxi numbers there are other indirect restrictions on taxis in many parts of the USA that serve to limit numbers or restrict entry. These include minimum numbers of taxis for taxi operators (where licenses are only issued to operators with at least a certain number of

taxis) as well as obligations to offer service 24 hours per day, effectively closing entry to the taxi market to individual owner/operators.

4. However, there have been some cases where cities have deregulated to a greater or lesser extent. Among the most prominent of these are Indianapolis, Indiana and Phoenix, Arizona. Other cities, such as Seattle, removed quantitative restrictions for a period of time but then reimposed them subsequently.
5. Indianapolis was one of the pioneers of deregulation and this is the city where it has been considered at least partially successful. The number of taxis increased from 392 to 700 and these remain significantly above comparable cities (700 versus 500 in Columbus, Ohio, for example). At the same time some restrictions were maintained at the airport to limit numbers at the largest rank in the city.
6. While limits on numbers of taxis in the city were removed, quality controls have increased over time to address concerns about poor driver behaviour, including lack of geographic knowledge. Indianapolis taxis are now obliged to accept credit cards and there is a dress code, in addition to general licensing and training requirements. In addition a requirement that new companies must have at least 20 taxis was introduced.
7. In Phoenix, responsibility for regulations is a state responsibility and consequently this is the other major US city to have no restriction on taxi numbers. However, Phoenix local officials would now like to improve quality restrictions but the principle of unrestricted entry would be maintained.
8. Cities that have experimented with removing quantitative restrictions generally have one thing in common – they are cities that are growing, in some cases (Phoenix) very rapidly. Almost all cities that have population decline or slow growth have quantitative entry restriction or alternatively other restrictions (such as that on operators as noted above) which serve to restrict entry.
9. In the majority of cities that have restrictions on taxi numbers, taxi licences are traded on the market. The price of these varies greatly, but in New York it is currently approximately $500,000. In smaller cities with less important taxi markets (such at Baltimore or Columbus) the price is significantly lower, with this being a more reasonable $20,000 to $25,000.
10. In considering the place of taxis in the USA in comparison to Europe it must be remembered that levels of public transport provision are significantly different

– generally there is far lower public bus network coverage, especially in medium and smaller sized cities.

Development Issues  7

1. Changes in demand

1. Over time there are changes in demand that do not relate to structure of the taxi industry (ease of use, fares, availability). These changes in underlying demand are common to all economies are not limited to Jersey and include:

• Population Growth

• Income growth and employment

• Appeal and practicality of alternatives (mainly public transport, but also walking, cycling and car use), and car ownership

• Restrictions on private car use, including drink-driving, car parking (shortages, tariffs) and congestion zones.

2. Population growth on its own will generally increase demand for all types of transport, including demand for taxis. Where population increase has occurred in areas where regulatory regimes have relaxed or removed quantity restrictions (for example in some US cities and in England) taxi numbers have increased.
3. In strictly regulated regimes (such as most of Australia) population growth has been used to justify an increase in the number of licences. Areas of declining population have generally not seen reduction on the number of licences permitted, but instead have the situation (as in Cleveland ,Ohio) of under 300 taxis being operated where the statutory maximum is 700.
4. In most western countries real incomes increased over the last 30 years, with these only dropping since the financial crisis of recent years. Higher incomes will generally lead to more products and services being consumed; in terms of transport this may lead users to choose options that are perceived as more convenient and secure (such as taxis) as opposed to walking or using mass public transport. Growth in taxi use may also occur where increased income leads to more evenings out, for example, which will generate more taxi journeys.
5. In Jersey, the changes to the economy over the years have impacted on the taxi industry in different ways. The reduction in tourism (particularly from the UK market) has led to reduced taxi demand from visitors, although this may have been at least partially compensated by the growth in visitors associated with the expanding financial services industry.
6. Any changes to alternative transport options will also be highly likely to have an impact on taxi use. Reductions in bus services and/or increases in fares are likely to lead to increased taxi use, while bus service improvements and/or  reductions in fares are likely to reduce taxi demand. Better facilities for walking or cycling could also lead to reduced taxi demand, but increases in car ownership are likely to have a bigger effect, particularly for daytime journeys.

7. Many people without cars use taxis for shopping journeys, particularly for journeys from supermarkets where carrying the weekly shop home on a bus would be difficult. However, if car ownership increases, use of taxis for this type of journey will reduce, thereby reducing taxi demand predominantly during off peak' times.
8. Finally, there is evidence that the availability and cost of parking can influence people's decisions to use taxis. This is most clearly seen at the Airport.

2. Sustainable Transport Policy

1. The States Strategic Plan 2009-2014 sets out a vision for a thriving Island community that is underpinned by sustainable economic growth. If the growth is to be maintained, without adversely affecting the quality of life for residents and visitors, then there is a need to adopt more sustainable ways of travelling around. In particular, there is a need to influence attitudes towards ownership of and use of private cars. Aspects of the Plan work to reinforce this, particularly:

• Policy 1 - Spatial Strategy

• Policy 6 – Reducing Dependence on the Car.

2. Following the adoption of the Plan, in July 2010 the Minister for Transport and Technical Services (TTS) published Jersey's Sustainable Transport which sets out some principles for a new planning framework for travel and transport. This Policy contains specific reference to taxis.
3. The section dealing with taxis briefly reviews the current three class taxicab system, pointing out that even though it is estimated that well over one million journeys are made each year, the regulatory system has changed little in decades nor does it reflect advances in technology. Consequently, modernisation is overdue. This conclusion was supported by a majority of those consulted who felt that TTS should look at ways to improve taxi service efficiency and integration and cited views that taxi fares are too expensive, that demand is not met on some occasions and that the image of the industry is poor.
4. Potential changes to the way taxis operate suggested in the policy are:

• there should be one class of signed taxicab with each taxicab able to access ranks and linked to an operator using GPS to track vehicle location;

• there should be one set of tariffs with a booking fee;

• all taxis should function under a single umbrella organisation with one telephone number;

• technology (CCTV, computer dispatch systems, GPS, etc.) should be embraced in order to improve the service and provide data to inform decision making; and

• defining the ambassador' role of the driver and improving adherence to the code of conduct.

5. It is stated that a more detailed analysis is required with factual evidence to assess the issues, the implications of these proposals and the justification for change. TTS will gather that evidence and develop proposals by 2012, to enable the taxi service to provide a simplified system which meets the future growing needs of the public and ensure its full implementation by 2015.
6. This aspect of the Sustainable Transport Policy was also subject to the Environment Scrutiny Panel which reported in November 2010. This endorsed the Policy conclusion that the taxi sector needs to be modernised for the reasons identified and suggested that the proposed timetable for reform should be shortened so that changes are implemented before 2015. It specifically referred to the lack of integration of taxis with other public transport services.
7. More generally, the Scrutiny Panel called for clearer targets, particularly as regards the environment and they also identified the problem of workers who need to get to and from work in the evening. The potential for taxis to contribute to solving these issues needs to be considered.

3. Taxis' public transport role

1. In spite of the traditional role of taxis as individualised transport', taxis can, and have, played a wide ranging role in the overall public transport network.

These can take many forms and include, but are not limited to:

• Taxibuses

• Shared taxi schemes

• Taxi based Demand Responsive Transport (DRT)

• Guaranteed ride home schemes from bus operators (or regional agencies)

• Women's safe transport schemes

2. Taxibuses are generally considered to be taxis or taxi-type vehicles (including

minibuses, though of the type used in the taxi trade as opposed to the larger variants operated by bus companies) which are used on regular fixed route or route deviation services.

3. The vehicles used on these services are generally licensed as taxis but operate as a bus service, with (in some cases) a route deviation service being offered, sometimes for an extra fare. The best known examples of taxibus operation are the Belfast black taxis' and the taxis' in South Africa that are the main means of public transport for much of the country. However, the 1985 Transport Act, which deregulated the GB bus industry, also introduced the taxibus concept, whereby any holder of a Hackney cab licence is entitled to a Special Restricted Public Service Vehicle Operator's Licence that enables them to operate a bus service with their taxi. They have to give advance notice of the route and timings they intend to follow, and of any changes to or withdrawal from these. Thus there is a commitment to operate the service, although it is possible for some or all of it to be on demand'.
4. Only a small number of taxibuses services have been developed in the past 25 years and even fewer are still operating. Nearly all such services have been in low-density rural areas as a lower-cost bus service replacement. Two notable exceptions have been Stagecoach's Fife Taxibus service which was a high- speed commuter service (and later a theatre service) into and out of Edinburgh, and the St. Budeaux Taxibus service developed by John Preece's Taxifast operation. Taxifast went into administration for a variety of reasons, but the Taxibus still survives, operated by former Taxifast employees with City Council support.[1]. This is a daytime operation – the logic was that demand for taxi services is higher in the evening, so this could be operated on an off-peak basis without diverting resources from premium work. The St. Budeaux service was also the basis for the City Council developing a TaxiHub' concept that is, in effect, a local, multi-modal interchange supported by a minimum set of facilities (sheltered seating, telephone, local information board, local shop).
5. Shared taxi schemes are often organised by other transport companies (frequently rail operators) or local authorities and trade off the elements of individual occupancy and direct service against lower cost for a shared service. As an example, the Treintaxi operation in the Netherlands (referred to in section 6.4.10) works by having a shared taxi take passengers coming off trains who are going to the same general area.
6. Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) services are those which seek to take passengers between points not on a fixed route. The actual route taken depends on the demands of the passengers on board and the service will only operate if required. DRT is similar to taxis services in some ways, but the main differences are:

• Generally organised and subsided by public bodies

• Shared occupancy

• Some pre-booking required, and commonly there are time and geographic constraints applying to the operation of the service.

7. Most commonly, DRT schemes are set up for specific groups of passengers (generally disabled persons and older persons) but there can also be general public DRT to cover areas or specific links that are not economical for buses to operate.
8. Taxi companies often already have staffed dispatch offices and the appropriate software in place to operate DRT services, as well as some suitable vehicles (in most cases). Taxi operators are therefore often contracted to operate DRT services (particularly general public DRT) on behalf of local authorities and examples of this include the Transport for Greater Manchester Local Link' services operating in outlying areas of Greater Manchester.
9. Taxi operators also commonly operate general public DRT schemes in France for local public transport authorities.
10. Women's safe transport schemes are another example of the use of taxis as part of a wider public transport network. These are generally organised by local authorities and in some cases universities to transport women home in cases where they may feel unsafe to walk or take conventional public transport, generally during late evening hours. As with DRT these operate on demand at certain times and locations, are subsided and generally incorporate some degree of shared occupancy.

4. Taxis' role supporting statutory services

1. Taxis commonly provide transport for different public services, notably health and education. The areas of transport provided by taxis in this way include:

• Home to school transport (mainstream and SEN)

• Social care (adult and child)

• Courts and probation

• Access to health, especially getting to hospital.

2. Taxis commonly provide links to schools where buses are not economical due to the small number of children travelling. This includes direct links to primary schools, as well as feeder type services to bus routes serving secondary schools. Taxis are more commonly used in rural areas than urban areas because of difficulties for buses in accessing more remote areas as well as the lower spatial density of the children there.
3. Taxis are particularly used to transport children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) to and from school. This is due to the unsuitability of bus transport for some children with behavioural problems as well as the low residential density of SEN children which precludes effective use of minibuses, the smaller number of schools, and limits on maximum travel time.

4. For reasons similar to SEN education transport, taxis are often used for social care transport for adults and children. In the UK this has seen a transfer from specialist accessible transport units operated by social work authorities towards the taxi and private hire trade. Many social work authorities now no longer operate their own transport.
5. Taxis play a key role in transporting clients to courts and to probation service appointments. Taxis are often preferred for this type of transport due to a greater assurance that the client will arrive at the location on time if a taxi is used as opposed to the client using public transport.
6. Finally, taxis are extensively used in the heath service to transport patients, particularly when transporting patients to a hospital for an operation or another procedure.