other reports template web viewsurvey of demand for hackney carriage services. draft final report....

Survey of Demand for Hackney Carriage Services

Draft Final Report

On behalf of Brighton & Hove City Council

a. Project Ref: 33895 | Rev: 01 | Date: October 2015

Office Address: Caversham Bridge House, Waterman Place, Reading, Berkshire RG1 8DNT: +44 (0)118 950 0761 F: +44 (0)118 959 7498 E: [email protected]

Survey of Demand for Hackney Carriage ServicesDraft Final Report

Document Control SheetProject Name: Survey of Demand for Hackney Carriage ServicesProject Ref: 33895Report Title:Draft Final ReportDate: 08 October 2015

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by: Ian Millership Technical Expert 06.10.15

Reviewed by: Alastair Mackie Associate 07.10.15

Approved by: Bob Pinkett Partner 08.10.15

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP

Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved

01 08.10.15 Draft Final Report IM AM RWP

Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2015

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docx


Contents

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. i

1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 12 Background to Taxi Licensing in Brighton and Hove.............................................................63 Results from Rank Surveys.....................................................................................................124 Public Consultation Results....................................................................................................355 Stakeholder Consultation........................................................................................................416 Licensed Vehicle Trade Consultation.....................................................................................487 Review of Demand for Wheel Chair Accessible Vehicles.....................................................528 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................................................559 Recommendations................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix A Formal Rank Provision Details......................................................................... IAppendix B Rank Observation Hours Undertaken..........................................................XIIIAppendix C Rank Observation Details.............................................................................XIXAppendix D On Street Public Attitude Results..............................................................XLIIIAppendix E Stakeholder Feedback Diary.........................................................................LV



This page is intentionally blank



Executive Summary[To be completed following client feedback on draft final report]

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage i


1 Introduction1.1 Context

1.1.1 Brighton and Hove City Council is responsible for the licensing of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles operating within the council area. The date of the start of a limit on vehicle numbers is given as 1986 in formal Department for Transport (DfT) published statistics. The limit originally applied to both Brighton and Hove councils separately and continued when they merged in the 1997 reorganisation into one unitary authority.

1.2 Study Timetable

1.2.1 Brighton and Hove City Council appointed Peter Brett Associates LLP on 22nd April 2015 to produce this survey of demand for hackney carriage services. As agreed with the client, the technical work was undertaken by CTS Traffic and Transportation who are specialists in this field.

1.2.2 The review was carried out between May and September 2015, with pedestrian survey work undertaken in May and July 2015. Licensed vehicle drivers were consulted by a letter sent out during June 2015, with other stakeholder consultation between May and September. Rank surveys were undertaken in mid-May 2015. A Draft Final report was submitted and this was reviewed in October 2015 to identify any factual or missing issues. The Final Report will be presented to Council during November 2015.

1.3 National Background and Definitions

1.3.1 At the present time, hackney carriage and private hire licensing is carried out under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (as amended by various further legislation including the Transport Act 1985, especially Section 16) in regard to hackney carriages and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 with reference to private hire vehicles. A number of modifications have been made within more recent legislation and through case law.

1.3.2 The issue of limits on hackney carriage vehicle licences (and other potentially restrictive practices) were considered by the Office of Fair Trading (OfT) (and latterly the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport). The Department for Transport most recently published Best Practice Guidance in April 2010 to cover a number of more recent issues and take on board both the recommendations of the OfT and House of Commons Select Committee (HoC SC). More recently a further HoC SC has led to the Law Commission (LC) taking on a wide ranging review of vehicle licensing law to be completed over the next few years. The consultation document from the LC was released in mid-May 2012 and their final recommendations published on 23rd May 2014 including 84 recommendations (specific recommendation numbers in brackets below from the report) including:

Retaining the two-tier system (1)

A statutory definition of pre-booking (3) and a new offence of anyone other than a locally licensed taxi driver accepting a booking ‘there and then’ (10)

That the term “hackney carriage” should be replaced in legislation with the word “taxi” (4)

New duty on taxi drivers to stop in specified circumstances if so determined by the local licensing authority (12)

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage 1


Each licensing authority under a duty to consult on the need to alter rank provision, not exceeding every three years (13)

Introduction of national standards for taxi and private hire services (30)

Licensing authorities retain power to set local taxi standards over and above national standards (46)

A more flexible power to introduce and remove taxi licensing zones (57)

Licensing authorities continue to have power to limit the number of taxi vehicles licensed in their area (58)

Subject to a statutory public interest test with how this statutory test should be applied determined by the Secretary of State (59)

Reviewed every three years and subject to local consultation (60)

Mandatory disability awareness training for all drivers (62)

An accessibility review at three year intervals (65)

1.3.3 Other recommendations are included of less relevance to this current report.

1.3.4 The Deregulation Bill originally contained three clauses impacting on taxi licensing. These cover unlicensed relatives being able to drive private hire vehicles (dropped), operators being able to transfer work across borders and length of driver and operator licences. An opportunity was also given for trade representatives to identify conditions of licence that were felt to be unduly restrictive. None of these really impact on the issue of unmet demand directly but could have some impacts on operations which might move demand from hackney carriages towards private hire more than the current situation might. Both clauses taken forward will come into effect in October 2015.

1.3.5 At the present time, each licensing authority in England supervises the operations of two different kinds of locally licensed vehicle. Firstly, all vehicles able to carry nine or more passengers are dealt with under national public service vehicle licensing and licensing authorities only have jurisdiction over those carrying eight or fewer passengers. These vehicles are further subdivided into:

Hackney carriage vehicles (sometimes referred to as ‘taxis’ in legislation), which alone are able to wait at ranks and pick up people in the street (ply for hire). To operate such a vehicle also requires a driver to be licensed to drive within the area the vehicle is licensed to operate

Private hire vehicles, which can only be booked through an operating centre and who, otherwise, are not insured for their passengers (often also known as ‘taxis’ by the public). To operate such a vehicle requires a vehicle and driver licence, and there must also be an affiliation to an operator. Such vehicles can only transport passengers who have made bookings via this operator.

1.3.6 For the sake of clarity, this report will refer to ‘licensed vehicles’ when meaning hackney carriage and private hire collectively, and to the specific type when referencing either specific type of vehicle. The term ‘taxi’ will be avoided as far as possible, although it has to be used in its colloquial form when dealing with the public, few of whom are aware of the detailed differences.



1.3.7 There is a further current issue that does impact on demand – the fact that many hackney carriages once properly licensed in an area with a driver then undertake private hire work in other licensing areas, often many miles from their home base. Such vehicles can have cost base advantages and can appear to be available for immediate hire when they are not in fact legally able to do so (eg with stickers saying ‘this vehicle can be hired immediately’, which only applies within their licensing area).

1.4 Review Aims and Objectives – National Background

1.4.1 Brighton and Hove City Council is seeking a review of their current policy towards hackney carriage quantity control in line with current Department for Transport (DfT) Best Practice guidance as published in April 2010. Further background information about previous policy is contained in Chapter 2 to set the context of the current situation.

1.4.2 The “Best Practice Guidance” paragraph 47 states: “Most licensing authorities do not impose quantity restrictions the Department regards that as best practice. Where restrictions are imposed, the Department would urge that the matter should be regularly reconsidered….”. Our database of taxi regulation, updated to September 2015, shows 91 authorities who openly declare a limit on hackney carriage vehicle numbers. There are others who restrict new plates to various levels of wheelchair accessible vehicles and have various levels of grandfather rights for the remaining saloon vehicles which are effectively often limited in number albeit not in the terms of a formal limit under Section 16 (as this is counted as quality restriction rather than quantity).

1.4.3 Of the 91 authorities in England and Wales with a formal limit on vehicle numbers, four have never seemed to have any formal study of the limit. A further 26 have tested their policy, but on an irregular basis (and not within the last three years). Over two thirds (61 authorities) undertake a regular review, all but three of which tend to undertake this more or less every three years. Many of these authorities are very strict on their repeat cycle.

1.4.4 In recent years several authorities have determined to remove their limit policy – most recently Exeter. Others – most recently Cambridge – have returned a limit. In some cases authorities returning a limit set either a ‘settling limit’ eg Watford, or a limit beneath the current level (Chesterfield), whilst others fixed at the level when the decision was made (allowing for vehicles in the pipeline at the time of decision). Some limited authorities (notably Knowsley) have set a new limit lower than the current to take account of dormant licences at time of survey. Some authorities still are found needing to issue plates (eg BANES)

1.5 Current Brighton and Hove Requirements

1.5.1 The study brief states “The consultant is required to carry out a comprehensive and independent survey of demand for hackney carriage services in the council’s area. This is to establish if the situation has changed since the previous survey of demand in 2012.

1.5.2 The key objectives of the independent study of demand are to:

Determine whether there is any evidence of significant unmet demand for hackney carriage services in Brighton and Hove

If significant unmet demand is found recommend how many licences would be required to eliminate this

Assess significant unmet demand for disabled access hackney carriage vehicles at ranks and by telephone and if any is identified recommend the required increase in numbers

1.5.3 The study should include the following:



Inception meeting

Initial consultation

Rank review

Rank observations based on 340 hours of direct observations

Public attitude interviews including 500 face to face interviews

Written consultation

Public consultation via the councils consultation portal

Comparison of provision and policy with other local authorities

Wheelchair demand assessment

Report (draft and final)

Trade consultation following the issue of the draft report (views gathered from the trade included as appendix to final report); and

Two presentations to committee

Including all expenses and 10 copies of the Final Report together with an electronic version

The new survey to be similar in content and format so that comparisons between surveys can easily be made”

1.6 Methodology

1.6.1 In order to meet Brighton and Hove City Council’s objectives, the following methodology was adopted:

Review of relevant policies, standards etc: to understand the authority’s aspirations for meeting travel needs and social inclusion and provide context to determining overall demand for travel and how this should be met;

Extensive rank observations and audits of all the ranks in the Authority, including monitoring passengers’ waiting time, any illegal plying for hire, use of Hackney Carriages by wheelchair users and rank audits;

On street interviews: a survey of 509 representative people on street to obtain information about their understanding of the sector, their last taxi journey, their overall levels of taxi use, about quality and barriers to use;

Consultation: including consultation with all relevant stakeholders – the local authorities, police, trade associations, all drivers, mobility impaired, specific user groups, businesses, and other major generators of taxi trips

Benchmarking against other authorities: to provide a useful comparison as to the quantity of taxis and private hire vehicles and to current policies in relevant other authorities.

1.6.2 In essence, the methodology used follows similar principles to all surveys undertaken by CTS together with all developments of methodology more recently applied to our surveys,



particularly including guidance from both the 2004 DfT letter and their 2010 Best Practice Guidance (which includes the 2004 guidance as an appendix), and including the latest knowledge arising from the Law Commission Review and the current status of the Equality Act. This report also seeks to provide compatibility with previous reports provided by other consultants to the Council.

1.7 Report structure

1.7.1 This Report provides the following further chapters:

Chapter 2 – current background to taxi licensing statistics and policy

Chapter 3 – results from the rank surveys

Chapter 4 – results from the surveys undertaken with the public

Chapter 5 – up to date stakeholder consultation

Chapter 6 – results from consultation with the taxi licensing trade

Chapter 7 – a review of demand for wheel chair accessible vehicles

Chapter 8 – summary and conclusions of this review

Chapter 9 –recommendations for policy arising from this review.

1.8



2 Background to Taxi Licensing in Brighton and Hove

2.1 The Brighton and Hove City Council Area

2.1.1 Brighton and Hove City Council is a unitary authority set up in 1997 and granted City status in 2001 in the former East Sussex county area of Southern England. The current population estimate from the 2011 census projected suggests the current 2015 population is 281,100.

2.1.2 Brighton and Hove lies on the south coast of England, at the end of the A23 from London, and south of the A27 which runs along the South coast. Other roads including the A259 and A270 link east-west across the area. Both Hove and Brighton have extended shopping and tourist areas along the coast whilst there are also suburban areas of the area between the A27 and the coast. The extent of the authority coast line runs from Portslade in the west to Saltdean in the east.

2.1.3 In public transport terms, the area has an extensive public transport system principally operated by bus services. This is supplemented by the Brighton – London rail route which also extends via Thameslink to north of London (Bedford). The Thameslink route will see upgrading in the near future providing further links to major destinations including Peterborough and Cambridge. The principal London rail route is supported by the east-west Coastway route running east and west from Brighton and also providing rail links from along the western coastway direct to London by-passing Brighton itself.

2.1.4 Brighton and Hove has held regular surveys for a number of years with the last survey in 2012 and records for overall results available for 2009, 2006 and 2003. All these surveys used the ISUD index and similar methodologies in some detail.

2.1.5 Being a unitary authority, highways and transport policy are all within the one council. Most ranks are therefore directly under the control of the authority, albeit within a separate section of the council. The Brighton station rank is, however, within the railway station and on railway land and requires a supplementary permit for vehicles to operate there – at a cost of £600 per year. Around 300 of the hackney carriage fleet are understood to take this permit up. There have been recent disruptions to the service from the station with highway / station refurbishment works under way.

2.2 Background Council Policy

2.2.1 Brighton and Hove, being a unitary authority, has all highway and transport policy powers under its control. Transport Policy is summarised in the current Local Transport Plan (LTP). The LTP applicable was approved by the City in March 2015 and is known as LTP4. It covers long term strategy for delivering transport improvements that looks ahead to 2030 and has a short term delivery plan focussed on the 2015/6 to 2018/9 period. Details are available in a Briefing Pack available in full on the council website.

2.2.2 The LTP4 Briefing Pack sets the context by quoting from the 2014 National Highways and Transport Public Satisfaction survey. The survey asked the public to identify three aspects of services that were ‘most important to you personally’ and those ‘most in need of improvement’. 2.4% of respondents said that ‘local taxi’ was the most important service to them. Less than 1% responded that ‘local taxi’ was a service most in need of improvement. This suggests a valued and appreciated service.



2.2.3 Taxi ranks are also recorded in LTP4 as one of a number of vehicle / people interchanges which need to be invested in to enhance neighbourhoods and destinations for people within the key programmes of delivery.

2.3 Policy of Restricting Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences

2.3.1 Brighton and Hove has a power to restrict the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences it grants when it is satisfied there is no unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages which is deemed to be significant. This power has been in this format since the introduction of the 1985 Transport Act, Section 16 (before which the power to limit was unfettered).

2.3.2 At the present time, overall government taxi policy is under review by the Law Commission (LC) (see Chapter 1, page 1 for more detail). The current status is that the LC recommended that councils are able to retain the option of limiting their number of hackney carriage vehicles, although any change will have to be agreed by Government and then taken through any appropriate legal process. Formal Government encouragement remains towards the minimisation of restrictions, including limit policies. This Report is undertaken within the context of these requirements. It also cross references with previous survey data where comparison is possible.

2.3.3 The 2012 survey found there was no significant unmet demand for hackney carriage vehicles generally although there was no evidence to support stopping the release of five further wheelchair accessible plates per year to further reduce the discrepancy in level of service enjoyed by the population as a whole compared to disabled persons in the area.

2.4 Background Statistics

2.4.1 Information was obtained to demonstrate the current make-up of the licensed vehicle fleet in the area, including current vehicle trends. The table below shows the historic level of vehicle numbers in this area.



Hackney carriage vehicles

Private hire vehicles

Total licensed vehicle fleet

Driver numbers Operators

hcd phd Dual TotalDfT data states limit began in 1986

Brighton and Hove merged in 1997 and became unitary1994 277+167

(444)unknown n/k 701+333

(1034)n/k n/k n/k n/k

1997 459 (10) 352 811 1155 280 0 1435 n/k1999 459 (11) 328 787 1091 377 0 1468 102001 459 (13) 397 856 1074 476 0 1550 202004 479 (12) 429 908 1097 527 0 1624 202005 479 (16) 470 949 1121 479 0 1600 202007 513 (21) 444 957 1103 527 0 1630 562009 528 (24) 614 1142 794 563 356 1713 722010N 528 (23) 466 (5) 994 Not collected2011 535 (25) 469 (6) 1004 1147 594 0 1741 662012N 540 (28) 444 (8) 984 Not collected2013 545 (31) 432 (9) 977 1199 578 0 1777 712014N 550 (37) 449 (10) 999 Not collected2015 555 (40) 465 (12) 1020 1196 606 0 1802 662015C 555 (40) 451 (12) 1006 1170 594 0 1764 65

Note: DfT statistics used from 1994 to 2009, 2011 and 2013.National Private Hire Association survey for 2010 / 2012/ 2014.Council statistics for time of DfT 2015 survey (end March 2015) and at end of May 2015 approximately consistent with time of survey.NB extra five plates issued from 1/6/15 meaning present number of hcv is 56086 of the 222 WAV (pre 1/6/15 additions) are rear loading.

2.4.2 Since 1994 when DfT statistics were first published, hackney carriage numbers have increased from 444 to the current level of 555, some 25% growth. This occurred with releases of licences of 15 around 1996, 20 around 2002, 34 around 2005, 15 around 2008, 7 around 2011 and then five per year since that time (the latter with the specific aim of increasing the level of wheel chair accessible vehicles). The latest set of five plates were introduced to the fleet arriving during June 2015, meaning the current hackney carriage fleet is 560, but the level of 555 was that pertaining to the time of our surveys at the ranks.

2.4.3 From 1997 to the council figures consistent with the time of the survey, private hire numbers have increased by 28%. There has been a fall in numbers of private hires since the peak of 470 in 2005 (ignoring the potential anomaly of 614 in 2009), although there is marginal growth from the low of 2013. The actual number of private hire vehicles tends to fluctuate by month.

2.4.4 Overall licensed vehicle numbers have risen by 24% in the 1997 onwards period, with 2015 seeing only the second time numbers for the total fleet have been over 1,000. Again ignoring the 2009 figure, this previously occurred in 2011 after which private hire and total numbers dropped back slightly.

2.4.5 Driver numbers for hackney carriages have been remarkably consistent at just under 1,200 for most of the period statistics are available for. This implies high potential for double shifting with the ratio of drivers to vehicles at 2.2.

2.4.6 On the private hire side, driver numbers have risen to more than double their 1997 level as vehicle numbers grew. The driver ratio is about 1.3, much lower than on the hackney carriage side but suggesting some potential for double shifting. The overall driver numbers are up 25% from 1997 to date. There is no dual driver option in Brighton and Hove.



2.4.7 In terms of operators, there has been a large increase between 2007 and 2009, mainly arising (as in other authorities) from changes in legislation particularly regarding contracts. The number has remained around the present level of 65 for most of this period.

2.5 Comparative Information to Other Authorities

2.5.1 The Table below compares recent licensed vehicle numbers for other authorities in areas considered similar to Brighton and Hove (using the same authorities as in 2012 but swopping Newcastle-upon-Tyne for Rugby). The table is listed with the lowest provision of hackney carriages (hcv) per thousand of population at the top of the table.

Area

Popn (2015 000)

No of HCV(% WAV)

HCV per 1000 popn

No of PHV(% WAV)

PHV per 1000 popn

Total veh Total veh per 1000 popn

Newcastle upon Tyne (L) 290 780 (57) 2.7 1,066 (9) 3.7 1,846 6.4Brighton and Hove (L) 281 555 (40) 2.0 452 (12) 1.6 1,007 3.6Blackpool (L) 143 256 (44) 1.8 331 (3) 2.3 587 4.1Bristol (D) 448 754 (100) 1.7 934 (0) 2.1 1,688 3.8Cheltenham 119 200 (11) 1.7 215 (2) 1.8 415 3.5Southend-on-Sea (L) 179 276 (29) 1.5 188 (2) 1.1 464 2.6Plymouth (L) 264 367 (100) 1.4 806 (0) 3.1 1,173 4.5Bournemouth (L) 192 249 (16) 1.3 288 (10) 1.5 537 2.8Southampton (L) 245 283 (25) 1.2 590 (5) 2.4 873 3.6Portsmouth (L) 212 234 (36) 1.1 981 (2) 4.6 1,215 5.7Eastbourne 103 106 (24) 1.0 379 (5) 3.7 485 4.7Hastings (L) 92 48 (10) 0.5 268 (18) 2.9 316 3.4Average (all above) 214 342 (41) 1.5 542 (6) 2.6 573 4.1England average (excluding London)

n/a(41) 1.2 n/a(3) 2.2 n/a 3.4

Note: Population values are 2015 estimates from the 2011 new census in thousands. Hackney carriage vehicle (HCV) and private hire vehicle (PHV) numbers are from DfT 2015 survey WAV = wheelchair accessible vehicle L = limits retained on vehicle numbers, R=limit returned after period of no limit. D=Originally had limit but removed some while ago.

2.5.2 The table above demonstrates that Brighton and Hove has the second highest level of provision of hackney carriages compared to resident population. This is just under twice the average of England excluding London and a third above the average for the twelve authorities compared. This level of provision is only exceeded by Newcastle upon Tyne (added to this comparison compared to 2012, when Brighton was at the top). Allowing for adding in Newcastle upon Tyne to the comparison, this result is the same as in 2012. Removal of Rugby from the 2015 comparison now places Hastings as the location with the lowest number of hackney carriages to population.

2.5.3 In the private hire comparison, Brighton and Hove provision compared to population levels places it tenth in the comparison, about half the level observed in the comparison set of authorities and also below the English average. This reflects the relative dominance of hackney carriage in the area compared to private hire.

2.5.4 When the comparison is undertaken for all vehicles, the high level of hackney carriages moves overall provision per thousand resident population up to seventh equal alongside Southampton. Newcastle overall provision is nearly twice as high (6.4 compared to 3.6) whilst the lowest provision overall is in Southend-on-Sea with a total level of 2.6. This is a marginal reduction in this index – dropping two places (but one of these is due to adding Newcastle upon Tyne for Rugby in 2015).

2.5.5 In terms of overall fleet size, Brighton and Hove is third in size of hackney carriage fleet behind Newcastle upon Tyne and Bristol but still a long way ahead of the next largest authority (Plymouth with 367). For private hire fleet size, Brighton and Hove is sixth and below the group average. This leads to the City having a total licensed vehicle fleet fifth largest and the last of the group having over 1,000 total vehicles.



2.5.6 Overall these figures suggest a very good and above average provision of hackney carriages. However, their dominance in the fleet mix and the relatively low provision of private hire vehicles depresses the overall licensed vehicle provision placing Brighton and Hove towards the centre of the locations compared. This may well reflect the higher overall usage of hackney carriage vehicles meaning that a smaller fleet is needed to meet demand as private hire vehicles often tend to be less active given they mainly use one driver per vehicle compared to the higher level of double shifting by hackney carriages.

2.6 Vehicle Accessibility

2.6.1 Before the addition of the latest five wheel chair accessible vehicles (WAV) to the hackney carriage fleet, about 40% of the hackney carriage fleet was WAV. This is very close to the English national average excluding London and to the comparator group average for hackney carriages (both 41%). It places Brighton and Hove fifth in the overall comparison for hackney carriages although two of the authorities are fully WAV fleets (Bristol and Plymouth). This places Brighton and Hove in a relatively favourable position.

2.6.2 When the level of WAV private hires is considered, Brighton and Hove has the second highest provision after Hastings (12% compared to 18%) – well above both the English average and the group value.

2.6.3 Overall, this suggests a very good provision, and has seen significant improvement even since 2012 when provision was already placing the city in the middle of overall WAV provision.

2.7 Disability Statistics

2.7.1 In 2012, the level of potential demand for WAV was reviewed by using two proxy values. The first was disability living allowance claimants and the second proportion claiming incapacity benefits or severe disablement allowances. Both saw Brighton and Hove having about average levels compared to the other eleven comparator authorities.

2.7.2 By 2015, these two proxy values had been revised by changed legislation and measures being used. Comparative statistics used are the personal independence payment (PIP) and the employment support allowance (ESA). These values were identified and related to local population statistics. Results are similar to 2012 using the ESA value with Brighton and Hove having the fifth highest value, about mid-table, although the PIP value suggests a similar proportion to 2012, but that Brighton and Hove now has almost the lowest level and a third of that of the top authority (Blackpool – same as in 2012). Blackpool in fact remains top in both statistics.

2.8 Driver Ratios

2.8.1 At the time of the survey there were 1,196 hackney carriage drivers for 550 vehicles – a high ratio of 2.2 drivers per vehicle, strongly suggesting potentially high levels of double-shifting by drivers of these vehicles. This compares to 606 private hire drivers for 465 vehicles, a much lower value of 1.3, suggesting principally single driving of the private hire fleet in the area. This demonstrates again the dominance of the hackney carriage in this area.

2.9 Fares

2.9.1 The table below summarises Brighton and Hove City Council hackney carriage fares, as last set:


PHTM calculations for a 2 mile journey Tariff 1 (Sep 2015):Brighton and Hove £6-80 15=

Brighton and Hove fare compared to below is:National £5-68 +20%South £6-24 +9%Group average £6-04 +13%


2.9.2 The current Brighton and Hove fare of £6-80 (as shown for 2015 from the latest NPHA Table) is 20% higher than the national average, 13% higher than the wider group and 9% higher than the “South” comparisons. It is the highest fare in the twelve authority comparator, the next highest being Bournemouth at 20p less. Portsmouth is the lowest in the group being on the NPHA comparison £1-20 less. The fare level remains some way short of the highest current fare at £9-20, and almost twice the current lowest fare of £3-50.

2.9.3 Overall, the fare is 15th equal where the highest fare is 1st and the lowest 365th (UK comparison including Scotland and Channel Islands)(NPHA September 2015 source). Just seven other authorities have the same fare. These include Hart, Reading and West Berkshire and Colchester but none of the other comparator group.

2.9.4 In 2012 there was a comparison of Brighton and Hove fares also to neighbouring authorities. This is repeated below. It shows that Brighton remains towards the top of local fares, having moved to second position in the local comparison compared to 2012. However, its overall position nationally has remained similar and the main impact has been other local areas not keeping pace with changes in Brighton fares – apart from Mid Sussex which has jumped up the table in this period.

2.9.5 Overall, this level of fare seems high although most tourist locations appear to be above average, particularly those in the South of England. Interestingly, within the 12 authority group all but one has fares above the national average level. But only two are above the South average. Within the local comparison Brighton and Hove has moved up and is now second although this is mainly the result of other changes.


PHTM 2 mile comparison for neighbours – 2015 compared to 2012:Authority (in 2015 order) 2015 2012 position and commentMid Sussex 6= 20 (moved up)Brighton and Hove 15= 17Adur 27= 9 (dropped)Arun 42= 15 (dropped)Lewes 61= 145 (moved up)Horsham 73= 44 (dropped)Worthing 107= 158 (moved up)Eastbourne 167= 124 (dropped)


3 Results from Rank Surveys3.1 Overall Results

3.1.1 The Table below shows the result of our review of the ranks available in the Brighton and Hove licensing area. Since the 2012 survey there has been little change in rank provision or overall scope of the ranks used. The only changes have related to the revisions made at various times to the private rail station rank during the revisions to the road network around the station. Provision during the survey period was roughly normal although during the wider data / information collection there were spells when the rank was moved to the nearby road, which may have coloured some views of either stakeholders or the general public.

3.1.2 The Council provided us with a list of all current formal ranks in the licensing authority area. An annotated copy of this list is provided in Appendix 1. This lists a total of 64 rank sections and two proposed rank sections. All of these are 24-hour although some have a dual function with some of the time provision being made for loading. Many of these ranks are long disused although a small number (such as that outside the Thistle Hotel, or at the National Express Coach station do see very occasional usage).

3.1.3 A total of 19 of the specific rank sections combine into 11 specific ranks and their feeders which are used and which were surveyed in 2015. All these locations were also surveyed in 2012. To these must be added the private rank within the curtilage of Brighton station, which requires a supplementary permit which we understand around 300 of the 555 hackney carriage vehicles choose to purchase.

3.1.4 Just one ‘informal’ location was observed, in Church Street near to New Road where there is a layby within a busy night life area – although formally use of this location is actively discouraged.

3.1.5 During our research we did not find evidence of any other ranks within the Brighton and Hove licensing area and understand our rank coverage is therefore comprehensive as required by the Department for Transport’s Best Practice Guidance on taxi and private hire licensing (BPG).



Rank / operating hours Spaces (approx)

Comments

24-hour RanksEast Street 1

4Made up of four separate parts, with feeder in Castle Square adding a further 6 spaces mainly used at night

West Street ?12

Made up of two parts either side of road, used almost exclusively at night.

Queen Square 14

Made up of three parts within the Square

Hove Station 10

Actually in centre of Goldstone Villas dual carriageway just south of station.

Old Ship Inn (King’s Road)

4 Formal header to much larger rank which uses informal feeder both on same side and on southern side of Kings Road at this point.

St Peter’s Place 8Norton Road 7Paston Place 8 Two parts of 6 and 2 spaces, servicing Royal Sussex County Hospital

Brunswick Place 8Church Road 9

Elm Grove 5(Church Street) N

/A

Informal location

Private RankBrighton Station

3.1.6 Surveys were proposed during the tender stage of the project (as informed by the previous survey), and were modified at the inception meeting to take account of current expectation of times of use of ranks and informal rank locations. The proposed level of rank observations was retained at 340, compared to 322 undertaken in 2012. With detailed hours observed available from 2012 as close as possible a set of sample observations were undertaken for 2015, albeit by video methods. For East Street, observations were continuous through Friday and Saturday.

3.1.7 Appendix 2 shows the actual hours observed, using video methods with the recordings observed by trained staff, and analysed to provide details of the usage and waiting times for both passengers and vehicles. Passenger waiting time was kept to that which was true unmet demand, ie when passengers were waiting but no hackney carriage vehicle was there.

3.1.8 Full details of the observed volumes of passenger and vehicle traffic are included in Appendix 3. The survey comprised some 340 hours of observation. Our observations took account of feeder ranks where necessary to ensure true estimation of the hackney carriage waiting times at ranks for passengers (although there were no such locations amongst the ranks observed in Bath). The Table below summarises the time periods observed at each locations as well as providing overall operational statistics for each location during each period of observation. A detailed description of the observations follows below.



3.1.9 For each rank, we conclude with an overall qualitative appreciation of the performance of the rank over the days observed:

Poor – major issues with service to rank resulting in long passenger queues;

Fair – rank deals with high volumes but sees some passenger queueing at times;

Good – no passenger queueing observed but nothing else of note in way rank operates;

Excellent – very high turnover with no passenger queueing and clear examples of drivers helping passengers use rank;

Developing – rank of recent origin but clearly growing in use

3.2 Service Provided at Ranks – Disabled and Others

3.2.1 During the course of the survey, five persons in wheel chairs were observed accessing hackney carriages at ranks in the Brighton and Hove area. There was one person on each of Friday, Saturday and Sunday at East Street, another at St Peter’s Place on the Saturday and one at the station on the Friday. All used wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAV) to leave the rank. Given the high level of WAV style vehicles this volume does seem relatively low.

3.2.2 There were four further passengers noted as visibly disabled but not in wheelchairs – three at St Peter’s Place – all on the Friday - and one at Paston Place (hospital) on the Saturday. All were helped into vehicles by the drivers. Two used WAV and two used saloon vehicles.

3.2.3 A further 99 cases were observed where drivers gave assistance to passengers to get into their vehicles with examples seen at nearly every rank during the course of the survey.

3.3 Rank Abuse

3.3.1 Some 14,410 different movements of vehicles were observed in total during the course of the 340 hours of rank observations. Of these just 130 (1%) were cars parking, picking up or setting down at the ranks. 69 goods vehicles were observed (0.5%) whilst there were just 16 emergency vehicles and a very tiny 10 private hire vehicles observed. This is a very good level of compliance by people in Brighton and Hove with not abusing the active ranks observed.

3.3.2 Of the 14,185 hackney carriage vehicle departures observed, 48% were saloon vehicles but 52% were WAV style vehicles. Given that at the time of the survey the WAV were 40% of the fleet, this suggests a much higher usage and activity level for the WAV vehicles than for the saloon – a good level of service for those who might need WAV style vehicles.



Rank Period (2015)

Tota

l pas

seng

ers

obse

rved

Tota

l load

ed v

ehicl

e de

partu

res

Pass

enge

rs p

er lo

aded

veh

icle

Empt

y ve

hicle

dep

artu

res

% o

f veh

icles

leav

ing

empt

y

No. o

f pas

seng

ers

havin

g to

wai

t for

veh

icle

to

arriv

e

East Street

Thurs 14th May 22:00 to 06:00 910 608 1.5 38 6 0Fri 15th May 06:00 to 06:00 2680 1700 1.6 188 10 15Sat 16th May 06:00 to 06:00 3437 2092 1.6 269 11 61Sun 17th May 06:00 to 17:00 385 245 1.6 132 35 0

West Street Thurs 14th May 23:00 to 04:00 301 156 1.9 35 18 34Fri 15th May 23:00 to 04:00 504 367 1.4 75 17 5

Queen Square

Thurs 14th May 00:00 to 03:00 90 55 1.6 11 17 0

Fri 15th May 10:00 to 18:00 and 21:00 to 03:00 649 399 1.6 93 19 3Sat 16th May 10:00 to 18:00 379 224 1.7 42 16 0

Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 121 75 1.6 31 29 0

Hove Station

Thurs 14th May 21:00 to 02:00 71 63 1.1 20 24 2

Fri 15th May 07:00 to 17:00 and 20:00 to 02:00 210 160 1.3 99 38 4

Sat 16th May 08:00 to 20:00 224 124 1.8 70 36 14

Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 53 33 1.6 21 39 0

Old Ship InnThurs 14th May 22:00 to 03:00 38 23 1.7 15 39 5

Fri 15th May 22:00 to 03:00 95 50 1.9 13 21 4

St Peter’s Place

Thurs 14th May 21:00 to 03:00 184 127 1.4 26 17 0

Fri 15th May 10:00 to 18:00 201 137 1.5 46 25 11

Sat 16th May 10:00 to 17:00 and 21:00 to 03:00 903 460 2 62 12 93

Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 56 35 1.6 20 36 1

Norton RoadFriday 15th May 10:00 to 22:00 166 117 1.4 106 48 1

Sat 16th May 10:00 to 20:00 133 86 1.5 83 49 1

Paston Place

Fri 15th May 13:00 to 21:00 172 135 1.3 93 41 10

Sat 16th May 11:00 to 18:00 78 55 1.4 58 51 0

Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 31 22 1.4 32 59 4

Brunswick Place

Thurs 14th May 22:00 to 01:00 5 4 1.3 8 67 0

Fri 15th May 10:00 to 01:00 147 100 1.5 147 60 4

Sat 16th May 10:00 to 20:00 146 80 1.8 89 53 6



Rank Period (2015)

Tota

l pas

seng

ers

obse

rved

Tota

l load

ed v

ehicl

e de

partu

res

Pass

enge

rs p

er lo

aded

veh

icle

Empt

y ve

hicle

dep

artu

res

% o

f veh

icles

leav

ing

empt

y

No. o

f pas

seng

ers

havin

g to

wai

t for

veh

icle

to a

rrive

Church Road

Fri 15th May 10:00 to 00:00 69 50 1.4 69 58 11

Sat 16th May 10:00 to 18:00 53 32 1.7 24 43 4

Sun 17th May 09:00 to 16:00 30 16 1.9 21 57 5

Elm Grove Fri 15th May 12:00 to 23:00 2 2 1 16 89 0

Church StreetFri 15th May 18:00 to 04:00 589 334 1.8 40 11 6

Sat 16th May 18:00 to 04:00 477 272 1.8 51 16 6

TOTALS 13589 8438 1.6 2143 20 310

Private Rank

Station

Thurs 14th May 20:00 to 00:00 845 645 1.3 19 3 0Fri 15th May 07:00 to 00:00 3064 2037 1.5 28 1 18Sat 16th May 10:00 to 16:00 838 510 1.6 25 5 0Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 566 321 1.8 18 5 0

3.4 East Street Rank

3.4.1 This rank is located at the northern end of East Street which is mainly pedestrianised. This part of East Street is effectively a hackney carriage only area, with most kerb and central road space allocated to hackney carriage waiting. The rank is designated in four parts and has some 14 spaces in total. At peak times, vehicles also use the Castle Square rank which provides a further six spaces. There can also be issues with over-ranking at this location as it is a key place for hackney carriages to wait for passengers. It is near the eastern end of the main North Street shopping and very close to a large number of shops and restaurants. In the 2012 survey it was the busiest council rank although usage was far higher at the private rail station location. Passenger access to vehicles at this rank is without any other traffic around and provides a relatively safe location to enter vehicles by any available door.

3.4.2 This rank was observed from 22:00 on Thursday 14th May through to 17:00 on Sunday 17th May 2015. This provides a complete profile of demand for this rank right through the sampled survey period.

3.4.3 Fairly uniquely for any recent rank studies, there was no hour during this period when the rank did not see 11 or more passengers. Most hours saw many more passengers with the highest level being 199 passengers in the 01:00 to 02:00 hour in the early hours of Sunday morning.



Early Saturday morning flows were similar peaking at 193 in the first hour of Saturday (midnight to 01:00). 23:00 to midnight on the Thursday also saw 195 passengers.

Thursday Observations

3.4.4 During the Thursday observations 910 passengers left this rank in 608 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.5 persons per vehicle – moderate. 38 vehicles left empty (6%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.4.5 In passenger terms, flows were very high rising from 134 to a peak of 195 in the hour before midnight. Flows remained 114 or more apart from the 02:00 hour (94), and in the 04:00 (51) and 05:00 hours (just 20 people).

3.4.6 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between six and 13 minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 23 minutes. This is a very good level of demand and service for this rank right till the early hours of Friday morning.

Friday Observations

3.4.7 During the Friday (full day of) observations 2,680 passengers were observed leaving in 1,700 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.6 persons per vehicle – moderate. 188 vehicles left empty (10%), with 15 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the 07:00, 08:00 and the following 04:00 hours. One passenger had to wait six minutes in the 07:00 hour but no other passenger waited more than two minutes for their vehicle to arrive. Over those experiencing a wait, the average wait was nearly 2.5 minutes, but shared over all people using the rank during this 24-hour period, the average delay was just one second.

3.4.8 In passenger terms, demand was between 14 and 20 people for the hours from 06:00 through to 11:00. Demand was then between 40 and 48 per hour for the next four hours (12:00 to 15:00). Demand then rose to between 65 and 79 over the next three hours, 102 and 142 per hour over the successive three hours 16:00 to 18:00. Peak flows were 332 in both the midnight and 01:00 hours, with demand then dropping back to 88 in the 05:00 hour. This is a very strong demand profile through the Friday.

3.4.9 Average vehicle waiting times for fares differed between before 19:00 and after. Before 19:00 typical vehicle waiting times for fares ranged from 9 to 33 minutes. After 19:00 this reduced to 4 to ten minutes as demand rose above the 100 passengers per hour level. Maximum waiting times showed a similar split with the maximum wait of 45 minutes in the 10:00 hour reduced to just 19 minutes in the later period – and that was in the 05:00 hour.

Saturday Observations

3.4.10 During the Saturday observations an even higher volume of some 3,437 passengers were observed leaving in 2,092 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy again of 1.6 persons per vehicle – moderate. 269 vehicles left empty (11%), with 61 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Those waiting were in seven different hours, with only the 07:00 hour seeing passengers waiting up to 9 minutes. In the other hours the maximum wait did not exceed five minutes. For those who experienced a wait the average was just over 3 minutes, but when the waits were shared over the high volume of passengers the average per passenger that might be expected was just three seconds.

3.4.11 Passenger flows saw a low of 11 people in the 10:00 hour. A similar pattern of flows stepped over three hour periods also occurred similar to Friday. Flows from 11:00 to 13:00 were between 31 and 51 and between 14:00 and 16:00 73 to 78. Flows then rose from 113 at 17:00 to 312 at 22:00 and then 344 in the 02:00 hour. Flows then dropped till there were 92 passengers in the 05:00 hour. The peak of 344 (02:00) was just slightly higher than the Friday peak of 332 (earlier at both 00:00 and 01:00 hours)



3.4.12 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were ten to 27 minutes before the 14:00 hour and usually 8 minutes or less for the rest of the day with a few small exceptions. In the first part of the day some vehicles were observed waiting up to 40 minutes whilst later on the usual longest wait rarely exceeded ten minutes, often less.

Sunday Observations

3.4.13 During the Sunday observations (which covered up to 17:00) 385 passengers were observed leaving in 245 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.6 persons per vehicle (again) – moderate. 132 vehicles left empty (a much higher 35%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.4.14 In passenger terms, flows fell from 62 to 31 and then remained between 19 and 32 for all hours from 08:00 to 12:00. From 13:00 to 15:00 flows were between 45 and 55.

3.4.15 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between seven and 26 minutes, longer than on other days with the reduced flow levels. Maximum vehicle wait time observed was 38 minutes although some were as low as 13 minutes.

Summary

3.4.16 Overall, service to this rank is good with a very small number of waits of people for vehicles despite there being very high volumes of demand. The rank is clearly operating 24/7 although there are differences in the levels of demand at different times.

3.5 West Street Rank

3.5.1 This rank is located at the southern end of West Street, almost at the sea front. It is made up of two parts with around 6 spaces either side of the section of West Street which is effectively dual carriageway. The head of the rank faces northwards on West Street on the western side, with the feeder on the opposite side of the road facing southbound. There are gaps in the central reservation allowing vehicles to u-turn between the feeder and head and also allowing those leaving the rank to head south or north as required. It is very close to several key night venues and tends only to be used at night although it is a rank for 24 hours per day. Passenger entrance to the passenger side is from the pavement, but any passenger entering from the driver side would be amongst relatively heavy car traffic.

3.5.2 This location was observed on Thursday evening 14th May from 23:00 to 04:00 in the early hours of the Friday, and again covering the same hours from Friday evening 15th May through to the early hours of Saturday morning.


3.5.3 During the observations on the Thursday 301 passengers were observed leaving in 156 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.9 persons per vehicle – high. 35 vehicles left empty (18%), with 34 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in all three hours from 23:00 to 01:00. The longest a person waited was 4 minutes, with the average wait of nearly 2.5 minutes for those who ended up waiting. However, when shared over all passengers the average wait reduced to 17 seconds.

3.5.4 Demand at this rank was between 77 and 90 for the first three hours and between 25 and 29 for the last two hours observed with the peak in the hour from 01:00.

3.5.5 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between three and 16 minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 43 minutes.

Friday Observations



3.5.6 During the Friday observations (over the same hours as the Thursday) a higher 504 passengers were observed leaving in 367 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of a much lower 1.4 persons per vehicle – low. 75 vehicles left empty (17%), with five passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. All those waiting were in the midnight hour. The longest wait was just a minute. For those waiting, the average wait was one minute. The average wait shared out between all passengers was just one second.

3.5.7 In passenger terms, flows rose from 72 at 23:00 to 178 (the peak) at 02:00 and then dropped to just five passengers in the 03:00 hour. The peak on this night was an hour later than the previous night, and almost twice as high.

3.5.8 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were five to six minutes with the longest observed wait just 14 minutes.

Summary

3.5.9 Overall, service to this rank is good although it clearly operates over a restricted time period.

3.6 Queen Square Rank

3.6.1 Queen Square is a dead-end section of road with ranks taking part of the eastern side of the kerb space and the bulk of the central area of the road – with three sections totalling some 14 spaces for hackney carriages. Exit from the area is via the traffic lights into North Street – with hackney carriages also allowed to use the bus / hackney carriage only route to the east. This rank is very close to the Churchill Square shopping area and other shops along North Street and Queens Road. This rank also provides a fairly quiet environment free from most other traffic, with passenger side entry from the pavement but drivers’ side may experience a limited amount of other traffic queueing to leave the area.

3.6.2 This rank was observed for five separate periods. The first period covered Thursday 14th May midnight through to 03:00 on the Friday morning. The rank was then observed from 10:00 to 18:00 on Friday 15th May and again from 21:00 until 03:00 on the Saturday morning. Saturday usage was observed from 10:00 to 18:00 and Sunday 17th May saw observations between 12:00 and 16:00.


3.6.3 During the Thursday observations 90 passengers were observed leaving in 55 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.6 persons per vehicle – moderate. 11 vehicles left empty (17%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.6.4 In passenger terms, flows varied from 22 to 40 with the midnight hour having the highest flows.

3.6.5 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between five and 11 minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 28 minutes. The other hours saw waits of 19 and 20 minutes respectively.

Friday Observations

3.6.6 During the observations 649 passengers were observed leaving in 399 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.6 persons per vehicle – moderate. 93 vehicles left empty (19%), with just three passengers having to wait for a hackney carriage to arrive. These were in the 13:00 and 17:00 hours but no-one had to wait more than three minutes, and the average wait over all passengers was just two seconds.



3.6.7 Passenger demand rose from 7 at 10:00 to a peak of 64 at 17:00. Evening flows were 27-30 in the 21:00 and 22:00 hours then rose to a peak of 97 in the 01:00 hour, reducing to 76 in the last hour observed.

3.6.8 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between nine and 21 minutes for the daytime, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 33 minutes. In the late evening / night observations the average vehicle wait was lower at between six and 11 minutes, with a maximum wait observed of half an hour, although this reduced in the later busier hours.


3.6.9 During the Saturday observations 379 passengers were observed leaving in 224 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.7 persons per vehicle – moderate. 42 vehicles left empty (16%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.6.10 In passenger terms, passenger flows rose each hour from 16 in the 10:00 hour to the peak of 87 in the 17:00 hour.

3.6.11 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between six and 16 minutes. The longest observed vehicle wait was 37 minutes although most maximum waits were between 19 and 28 minutes.

Sunday Observations

3.6.12 During the Sunday observations 121 passengers were observed leaving in 75 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.6 persons per vehicle – moderate. 31 vehicles left empty (29%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.6.13 Sunday passenger flows were between 28 and 34 with the highest flow in the 13:00 hour.

3.6.14 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were around five minutes for the first two hours but then increased to 29 to 35 minutes. Maximum vehicle observed waiting times also varied between the first two and last two hours – being 10-11 minutes in the first two hours and then rising to 39 to 50 for the last two hours – despite very similar numbers of passengers.

Summary

3.6.15 Overall, service to this rank is good although flows are lower than at East Street although still at healthy levels compared to many other cities.

3.7 Hove Station Rank

3.7.1 This rank is located just south of the station in the central reserve of Goldstone Villas. There are 10 spaces and hackney carriages park facing the station. Passengers do have to cross traffic to get to the rank whichever way they approach, and all passengers are exposed to car and other traffic as they enter vehicles. There is no provision for hackney carriages within the covered vehicular entrance to the station car park.

3.7.2 This location was observed over five periods. Observations ran from 21:00 on Thursday 14th May to 02:00 on the Friday morning of 15th May. Further Friday observations were from 07:00 to 17:00 and then from 20:00 to 02:00 on the Saturday morning of 16th May 2015. Saturday operation was also observed from 08:00 until 20:00, and Sunday 17th between 12:00 and 16:00.




3.7.3 During the Thursday observations 71 passengers were observed leaving in 63 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.1 persons per vehicle – very low. 20 vehicles left empty (24%), with 2 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive in the midnight hour. Over all passengers this queueing equated to just three seconds per passenger.

3.7.4 There were between 17 and 29 passengers in the three key hours, with demand dropping to just four in the 01:00 hour.

3.7.5 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were around ten minutes for the first two hours and then fell to four minutes or less for the last two hours. One vehicle waited 28 minutes in the 23:00 hour although other waits were less, including just four minutes in the last hour observed.

Friday Observations

3.7.6 During the observations 210 passengers were observed leaving in 160 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.3 persons per vehicle – low. 99 vehicles left empty (38%), with four passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the 23:00 and 01:00 hours, but no-one waited longer than three minutes. Whilst the average wait for those waiting was 2.5 minutes, shared over all passengers the likely wait was just three seconds.

3.7.7 In passenger terms, demand was relatively light – between 1 and 15 for the 07:00 to 16:00 period and between eight and 49 in the later observations. The peak flow was at 23:00, after which flows fell to 16 and then 8.

3.7.8 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between eight and 25 minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 51 minutes. In the evening / night observations average vehicle waits were generally lower, and more so in the hours when people ended up waiting for vehicles.


3.7.9 During the Saturday observations 224 passengers were observed leaving in 124 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.8 persons per vehicle – high. 70 vehicles left empty (36%), with 14 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Those waiting were in the 12:00 and 19:00 hours, with the longest wait being five minutes. For those experiencing a wait the average was just under two minutes. Shared over all passengers the average expected wait was seven seconds.

3.7.10 In passenger terms, flows were between two and 28 in each hour apart from 19:00 when some 74 passengers were observed (and 11 ended up waiting for a vehicle to arrive).

3.7.11 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between five and 24 minutes. A maximum wait of 50 minutes was observed. The average wait for the last, busy hour, was just two minutes.

Sunday Observations

3.7.12 During the Sunday observations 53 passengers were observed leaving in 33 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.6 persons per vehicle – moderate. 21 vehicles left empty (39%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.7.13 There were between eight and 23 passengers in each of the four hours observed with highest flows at 13:00.

3.7.14 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between five and 15 minutes. The vehicle waiting the longest waited for 22 minutes.



Summary

3.7.15 Overall, service to this rank is good although it is clear the demand is lower here than at other sites apart from at commuting or busy train times.

3.8 Old Ship Rank

3.8.1 This rank is located on the pavement near the Old Ship Inn on Kings Road, the main seafront route through Brighton. Kings Road has a central reservation at this point and vehicles tend to wait further back towards West Street rather than use the rank. The rank is near a large number of night venues and the access from several other venues to the main Kings Road. We were advised that vehicles wait along the northern carriageway then also queue to feed the rank on the southern side of Kings Road, feeding round to the rank at the traffic lights of West Street by u-turns. Passengers on the passenger side would enter from the wide pavement (albeit sometimes narrowed by bar furniture), but entrance from the driver side would be hazardous due to the relatively fast neighbouring traffic lane.

3.8.2 Observations here focussed on Thursday 14th May from 22:00 to 03:00 on the Friday morning and similar hours for Friday 15th May through to the early hours of Saturday morning.


3.8.3 During the Thursday observations 38 passengers were observed leaving in 23 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.7 persons per vehicle – moderate. 15 vehicles left empty (39%), with five passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the 22:00 and 23:00 hours but none were more than one minute. Over all passengers this averaged a wait of just eight seconds.

3.8.4 In passenger terms, flows were 16-19 for the first two hours and then between one and three – negligible.

3.8.5 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were just a few minutes in the first two hours and five to seven minutes when flows were lower. Maximum waits were also very low, no more than nine minutes.

Friday Observations

3.8.6 During the observations 95 passengers were observed leaving in 50 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.9 persons per vehicle – high. 13 vehicles left empty (21%), with four passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the midnight and 02:00 hours with the longest wait being four minutes. This averaged a wait of three minutes per person who waited, but reduced to an expected wait of just eight seconds shared between all passengers using the location.

3.8.7 The rank was busier on the Friday/Saturday – with 21 to 36 passengers in the 22:00 and 23:00 hours. Again, the rank was quiet after midnight, with just one and eight passengers in the following two hours.

3.8.8 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between two and five minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being eight minutes.

Summary

3.8.9 Overall, service to this rank is good



3.9 St Peter’s Place Rank

3.9.1 This rank is located just off the busy A23 route northwards from the Brighton central area. It is located on a wide one-way section of road and provides 8 spaces for vehicles. Driver side entry would be very difficult given the nearby traffic lane although the rank is itself in a lay-by and also provides double-banking for the hackney carriages waiting there.

3.9.2 The rank was observed on five separate occasions. Firstly, Thursday 14th May was observed from 21:00 through to 03:00 on the Friday. Friday 15th saw observations between 10:00 and 18:00. Saturday 16th May was observed between 10:00 and 17:00 and again from 21:00 until 03:00 the next morning. Sunday 17th May was covered from 12:00 to 16:00.


3.9.3 During the Thursday observations 184 passengers were observed leaving in 127 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.4 persons per vehicle – low. 26 vehicles left empty (17%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.9.4 In passenger terms, flows rose from 16 at 21:00 to 60 in the midnight hour, after which they fell to 12 and then 4.

3.9.5 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between five and 22 minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 28 minutes.

Friday Observations

3.9.6 During the observations 201 passengers were observed leaving in 137 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.5 persons per vehicle – moderate. 46 vehicles left empty (25%), with 11 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the 14:00 and 17:00 hours with the longest wait being three minutes. The average wait experienced by those who had to wait was just over 1.5 minutes, but averaged over all users this is just five seconds.

3.9.7 Passenger flows varied from eight to 42, with the highest flow in the 17:00 hour, and the second highest at 14:00, both times when people had to wait for vehicles to arrive.

3.9.8 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between three and 23 minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 26 minutes.


3.9.9 During the Saturday observations 903 passengers were observed leaving in 460 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 2 persons per vehicle – relatively high. 62 vehicles left empty (12%), with 93 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the 12:00 and 13:00 hours and then every hour from 23:00 to 02:00. However, only one person waited eight minutes with all other waits being five minutes or less. In the late night observations the maximum wait observed was three minutes. The average wait for those experiencing a wait was just over 2 minutes, but shared over the volume of passengers using the rank was 13 seconds.

3.9.10 Daytime flows at this location were between nine and 53, the highest being in the 16:00 hour. In the evening / late night observations, flows rose from 67 to a peak of 160, reducing to 94 in the 02:00 hour. All these flows led to passengers having to wait at some point for a hackney carriage to arrive.

3.9.11 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between three and 12 minutes in the daytime but just one to nine minutes in the evening / late night observations. Longest waits varied similarly with 31 minutes for the daytime and ten minutes for the later observations.



Sunday Observations

3.9.12 During the Sunday observations 56 passengers were observed leaving in 35 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.6 persons per vehicle – moderate. 20 vehicles left empty (36%), with just one passenger having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. They waited in the 12:00 hour for four minutes – averaged over all observations this is just four seconds.

3.9.13 In passenger terms, the rank saw between 12 and 17 passengers in each of the four hours observed.

3.9.14 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between four and 15 minutes. The longest vehicle wait observed was half an hour.

Summary

3.9.15 Overall, service to this rank is fair with the highest level of waiting for hackney carriages observed here across the survey.

3.10 Norton Road Rank (Hove)

3.10.1 This rank is outside Hove Town Hall and on the eastern side of Norton Road taking up one of the two southbound lanes at this point. It has seven spaces. It is the furthest western rank in use in the Borough along the main spine route of Church Road. There is a central reserve covering part of the location of the rank. It also has a waiting shelter for passengers. Entry to the passenger side would be from the pavement but driver side entry would be relatively unsafe given the passing traffic and the nearby central reserve which forces other traffic to be quite close to anyone choosing to enter a taxi from the driver side.

3.10.2 Observations were undertaken at this rank from 10:00 on Friday 15th May 2015 until 22:00, and on the Saturday 16th from 10:00 to 20:00.

Friday Observations

3.10.3 During the observations 166 passengers were observed leaving in 117 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.4 persons per vehicle – low. 106 vehicles left empty (48%), with one passenger having to wait for a vehicle to arrive – two minutes in the 20:00 hour.

3.10.4 Passenger flows varied from eight to 27, with the two busiest hours being 20:00 and 21:00, with flows of 21 and 27 observed.

3.10.5 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between eight and 20 minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 41 minutes.


3.10.6 During the Saturday observations 133 passengers were observed leaving in 86 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.5 persons per vehicle – moderate. 83 vehicles left empty (49%), with one passenger having to wait for a vehicle to arrive – in the 12:00 hour for just two minutes.

3.10.7 In passenger terms, the rank saw between four and 19 passengers in the hours between 10:00 and 17:00. Again the busiest two hours, with 29 and 20 passengers respectively, were the last two observed (in this case 18:00 and 19:00).

3.10.8 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between five and 16 minutes. The longest observed vehicle wait was 28 minutes.



Summary

3.10.9 Overall, service to this rank is good. However it also clearly sees times when it is used more than others – in the evening. The relatively high empty departure rates also suggest the location may be used to wait for radio calls.

3.11 Paston Place Rank (Hospital)

3.11.1 This rank is located on the opposite side of the road from the main hospital and on the side road Paston Place. Paston Place drops rapidly downwards away from the hospital which could be an issue for anyone trying to access hackney carriage in a wheel chair. There are two parts of the rank with a total of 8 spaces. Any over-ranking causes issues as the rear of the rank is within a residential area where there is high pressure for parking. The hill upwards would however make entry from either passenger or driver side relatively safe in terms of speed of other vehicles on the driver side, although the steepness could be an issue.

3.11.2 The rank was observed on Friday 15th May 2015 from 13:00 to 21:00. On the Saturday 11:00 to 18:00 were observed, and on the Sunday 17th May 2015 12:00 to 16:00

Friday Observations

3.11.3 During the observations 172 passengers were observed leaving in 135 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.3 persons per vehicle – low. 93 vehicles left empty (41%), with 10 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the 16:00, 17:00 and 18:00 hours, with the longest wait some nine minutes. The average wait for those experiencing any wait was just under five minutes. Averaged over all passengers this was 17 seconds.

3.11.4 The rank saw between 12 and 37 passengers per hour, with the busiest hour at 17:00.

3.11.5 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were 15 to 24 minutes for the first three hours and then fell to two to nine minutes from 16:00 onwards. Longest vehicle wait in the first period was 35 minutes, but this reduced to 16 minutes in the latter period.


3.11.6 During the Saturday observations 78 passengers were observed leaving in 55 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.4 persons per vehicle – low. 58 vehicles left empty (51%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.11.7 In passenger terms, there were between six and 17 passengers in each hour. Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between six and 15 minutes. The longest observed vehicle wait was 21 minutes.

Sunday Observations

3.11.8 During the Sunday observations 31 passengers were observed leaving in 22 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.4 persons per vehicle – low. 32 vehicles left empty (59%), with four passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the 12:00 and 13:00 hours with maximum wait being six minutes. When averaged over all passengers this average delay was 39 seconds due to the low flows here.

3.11.9 Passenger flows were just six to nine people per hour. Vehicle average waits for a fare were three to 15 minutes and the longest observed vehicle wait was 18 minutes.

Summary

3.11.10 Overall, service to this rank is fair.



3.12 Brunswick Place Rank (Hove)

3.12.1 This rank is located just north of the main Church Road – Western Road axis of Brighton and the easternmost of the three used ranks on this route within Hove. It has eight spaces on the eastern side with vehicles facing southwards towards the main route. Western Road at this point has several shops and is a relatively busy area. Other parking is provided in the centre of Brunswick Road and entry from the driver side would be from car traffic but this would be relatively slow moving and has reasonable amounts of space between the hackney carriage and the centrally parked vehicles. Driver side entry is from the pavement although this is relatively narrow at this point.

3.12.2 This rank was observed between 22:00 on Thursday 14th May 2015 and 01:00 on the Friday morning. Friday 15th May 2015 was covered from 10:00 to 01:00 and Saturday 16th May between 10:00 and 20:00.


3.12.3 During the Thursday observations five passengers were observed leaving in four vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.3 persons per vehicle – low. Eight vehicles left empty (67%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.12.4 In passenger terms, demand was negligible (one to two passengers). Average vehicle waiting times suggest few vehicles waited here.

Friday Observations

3.12.5 During the observations 147 passengers were observed leaving in 100 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.5 persons per vehicle – moderate. 147 vehicles left empty (60%), with four passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits – but of no more than two minutes- occurred in the 13:00, 17:00 and 20:00 hours, averaging just over a minute for those who had to wait. Over all passengers this is two seconds.

3.12.6 Flows varied from five to 28 passengers per hour, dropping to two to four after the 22:00 hour (and none in the midnight hour). The peak was 19:00.

3.12.7 Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between seven and 17 minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 30 minutes.


3.12.8 During the Saturday observations 146 passengers were observed leaving in 80 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.8 persons per vehicle – high. 89 vehicles left empty (53%), with six passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Those waiting were in the 12:00 and 19:00 hours. The longest waits saw someone wait nine minutes. The average wait for those waiting was therefore nearly five minutes, but averaged over all using the rank in this survey period this was 12 seconds.

3.12.9 In passenger terms, the rank saw between four and 24 passengers with the busiest hour again being 19:00. Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between four and 15 minutes. The longest vehicle wait observed was 26 minutes.

Summary

3.12.10 Overall, service to this rank is fair despite demand being low.



3.13 Church Road Rank (Hove)

3.13.1 This is the central of the three ranks located along the main Hove – Brighton spine route. It has nine spaces on the northern side of the section of Church Road which has a wide central pedestrianised area where buses terminate and park. The rank also has a passenger waiting shelter although this is just south of the head of the rank where the pavement widens to reduce the eastbound traffic to a single lane. This narrowing together with a pedestrian crossing would slow traffic passing hackney carriages on the driver side to a slow pace – making entry to vehicles relatively safe from this side. The pavement here is also of moderate width allowing relatively easy access from the passenger side although use of wheel chair access might be difficult given the nearby wall.

3.13.2 Observations at this rank covered Friday 15th May from 10:00 to midnight. Saturday 16th May 2015 was observed from 10:00 to 18:00 and Sunday 17th May between 09:00 and 16:00.

Friday Observations

3.13.3 During the Friday observations 69 passengers were observed leaving in 50 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.4 persons per vehicle – low. 69 vehicles left empty (58%), with 11 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the 14:00, every hour from 16:00 to 18:00 and then finally in the 21:00 hour. The longest a person waited was three minutes, with the average wait of just over two minutes for those who ended up waiting. However, when shared over all passengers the average wait reduced to 20 seconds.

3.13.4 In passenger terms, demand was negligible (one to nine passengers). Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between one and 13 minutes, with the longest vehicle wait for a fare recorded being 23 minutes. The high level of empty departures and the low demand / low vehicle waiting times suggest the rank tends to see vehicles servicing it more pausing while passing than actually waiting for passengers.


3.13.5 During the Saturday observations 53 passengers were observed leaving in 32 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.7 persons per vehicle – moderate. 24 vehicles left empty (43%), with four passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Those waiting were in the 11:00 and 13:00 hours although none waited more than two minutes. The average wait ove the sampled hours was nine seconds.

3.13.6 In passenger terms, flows were low, between five and eight in each hour. Average vehicle waits were between three and 13 minutes with a longest wait of 23 minutes recorded, suggesting on this day vehicles are waiting for passengers here (flows are higher, albeit still low).

Sunday Observations

3.13.7 During the Sunday observations 30 passengers were observed leaving in 16 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.9 persons per vehicle – high. 24 vehicles left empty (43%), with five passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. These occurred in the 10:00 and 15:00 hours but none were longer than a minute, with the average expected wait being 10 seconds.

3.13.8 Flows of passengers were between three and six, with the peak at 15:00. Average vehicle waiting times for fares varied between six and 28 minutes with a maximum vehicle wait of 29 minutes observed.

Summary



3.13.9 Overall, service to this rank is fair with very low demand.

3.14 Elm Grove Rank

3.14.1 This rank is near the Brighton General Hospital, on the same side of the road as the hospital. It has five spaces. Driver side access would not be safe given the nearby live traffic lane. Access from the passenger side is safe although there is a high wall nearby and wheel chair accessibility could be an issue given the relatively narrow pavement and this high wall. Vehicles face towards Brighton although u-turns would be possible to leave the rank – with a hashed widening and bollard for the hospital entrance providing some extra space for such manoeuvres.

3.14.2 This rank was observed on Friday 15th May 2015 between 12:00 and 23:00. During this sample only two passengers used the rank matched by two vehicles who waited 13 and eight minutes respectively – suggesting a possible pre-booking.

Summary

3.14.3 Overall, service to this rank appears to be related to pre-bookings only.

3.15 Church Street Informal Location

3.15.1 Church Street is in the middle of a vibrant day and night area of Brighton city centre. There is no formal rank provision in this road nor nearby. We were advised that hackney carriage vehicles tend to wait for custom in the area near the New Road / Jubilee Street crossroads – where there is a loading bay just to the east of the junction on the southern side of the road. This can cause issues with traffic flow and pedestrian movements and hackney carriage activity here tends to be discouraged although this is difficult given the high volumes of pedestrian movements and the legitimate opportunity for people to make bookings for pick-ups in this area.

3.15.2 This location was observed on Friday 15th May 2015 from 18:00 till 04:00 on the Saturday morning, and for the same hours on Saturday 16th May through to Sunday morning.

Friday Observations

3.15.3 During the Friday observations 589 passengers were observed leaving in 334 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.8 persons per vehicle – high. 40 vehicles left empty (11%), with six passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Waits occurred in the midnight, 01:00 and 03:00 hours although none were longer than a minute.

3.15.4 In passenger terms, flows rose from 36 at 19:00 to 116 at 01:00 dropping then to 68 and 28. These are higher flows than many other formal ranks that exist. Vehicles waited between two and seven minutes for passengers with a longest wait of 18 minutes observed.


3.15.5 During the Saturday observations 477 passengers were observed leaving in 272 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.8 persons per vehicle – high. 51 vehicles left empty (16%), with six passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. Those waiting were in the 22:00 hour but none waited more than two minutes.

3.15.6 In passenger terms, flows rose from 10 through to 98 in the midnight hour (but less than on the Friday/Saturday), then dropping to 11 in the 03:00 hour. Vehicle average waits were zero to five minutes, with a maximum recorded wait again of 18 minutes observed.

Summary



3.15.7 Overall, service to this rank is good and with relatively strong demand.

3.16 Private Rank – Brighton Railway Station

3.16.1 This rank requires a separate permit from the operating company running the railway station on behalf of Railtrack. It is a segregated area principally for hackney carriage usage accessed by a gateway used for entry and exit. Vehicles pick up near to one of the station exits and queue around the area in several lines. Being segregated, entry to vehicles would be relatively safe either from the passenger or driver side, and the area is flat allowing ready access by those in wheel chairs as long as other hackney carriages are not waiting around the vehicle being entered. There can be geometric delays here as passengers build up and try to access the vehicles waiting.

3.16.2 This rank was observed for four separate blocks of hours. The first ran from 20:00 on Thursday 14th May until midnight that day. Friday 15th May 2015 was observed from 07:00 through to midnight. Saturday 16th May was covered between 10:00 and 16:00 and Sunday 17th May 2015 between 12:00 and 16:00.


3.16.3 During the Thursday observations 845 passengers were observed leaving in 645 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.3 persons per vehicle – low. 19 vehicles left empty (3%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.16.4 In passenger terms, flows rose from 191 to 223 over the four hours observed. Average vehicle wait times for fares were between three and five minutes, with the longest vehicle wait observed being 24 minutes.

Friday Observations

3.16.5 During the Friday observations 3,064 passengers were observed leaving in 2,037 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.5 persons per vehicle – moderate. 28 vehicles left empty (1%), with 18 passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive. All of these waits were in the 08:00 hour with maximum waits of nine minutes. For those experiencing a wait, the average was over 5.5 minutes, but when shared over the large volumes observed this reduced to an expected wait of just two seconds.

3.16.6 Flows began at 14, rising to 55 and then 130. After a drop to 78, flows again rose every hour starting from 130 to reach the peak of 309 in the 19:00 hour. Flows then dropped but remained mainly in the 200+ range, with just 22:00 seeing 174 passengers. Typical vehicle wait times were three to seven minutes, although some hours saw longer. Other than in the quieter first hour, the maximum vehicle wait time observed was 27 minutes and more typically around ten minutes.


3.16.7 During the Saturday observations 838 passengers were observed leaving in 510 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.6 persons per vehicle – moderate. 25 vehicles left empty (5%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.16.8 Daytime flows at this location were between 105 and 175, the highest being in the 12:00 hour. Average vehicle waits were generally two to eight minutes with the longest observed vehicle wait being 19 minutes.

Sunday Observations



3.16.9 During the Sunday observations 566 passengers were observed leaving in 321 vehicles, giving vehicle occupancy of 1.8 persons per vehicle – high. 18 vehicles left empty (5%), with no passengers having to wait for a vehicle to arrive.

3.16.10 In passenger terms, the rank saw between 108 and 164 passengers in each of the four hours observed, the busiest hour being 14:00. Average vehicle waiting times for fares were between seven and 11 minutes. The longest vehicle wait observed was 20 minutes

Summary

3.16.11 Overall, service to this rank is good.

3.17 Comparison of Overall Supply and Demand

3.17.1 The Table below provides a slightly different summary of supply and demand, comparing average vehicle arrivals per hour with average loaded departures per hour, ie seeing how supply and demand match on average.

Rank PeriodNo

of h

ours

rank

act

ive

Aver

age

vehi

cle a

rriva

ls / h

r

Aver

age

load

ed d

epar

ture

s / h

r

Ove

rall j

udgm

ent o

f ser

vice

prov

ided

24 hr ranks

East Street

Thurs 14th May 22:00 to 06:00 8 81 76

GoodFri 15th May 06:00 to 06:00 24 79 71Sat 16th May 06:00 to 06:00 24 98 87Sun 17th May 06:00 to 17:00 11 34 22

West Street Thurs 14th May 23:00 to 04:00 5 38 31 GoodFri 15th May 23:00 to 04:00 5 88 73

Queen Square

Thurs 14th May 00:00 to 03:00 3 22 18

GoodFri 15th May 10:00 to 18:00 and 21:00 to 03:00 14 35 29Sat 16th May 10:00 to 18:00 8 33 28Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 4 27 19

Hove Station

Thurs 14th May 21:00 to 02:00 4 21 16

GoodFri 15th May 07:00 to 17:00 and 20:00 to 02:00 15 17 11

Sat 16th May 08:00 to 20:00 12 16 10

Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 4 14 8

Rank Period

No o

f hou

rs ra

nk a

ctive

Aver

age

vehi

cle a

rriva

ls / h

r

Aver

age

load

ed d

epar

ture

s /

hr

Ove

rall j

udgm

ent o

f ser

vice

prov

ided

Old Ship Inn Thurs 14th May 22:00 to 03:00 4 10 6 Good



Fri 15th May 22:00 to 03:00 3 21 17

St Peter’s Place

Thurs 14th May 21:00 to 03:00 6 26 21

FairFri 15th May 10:00 to 18:00 8 23 17

Sat 16th May 10:00 to 17:00 and 21:00 to 03:00 13 40 35

Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 4 14 9

Norton RoadFriday 15th May 10:00 to 22:00 12 19 10

GoodSat 16th May 10:00 to 20:00 10 17 9

Paston Place

Fri 15th May 13:00 to 21:00 8 29 17

FairSat 16th May 11:00 to 18:00 7 16 8

Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 4 14 6

Brunswick Place

Thurs 14th May 22:00 to 01:00 3 4 1

FairFri 15th May 10:00 to 01:00 14 18 7

Sat 16th May 10:00 to 20:00 10 17 8

Church Road

Fri 15th May 10:00 to 00:00 14 9 4

FairSat 16th May 10:00 to 18:00 8 7 4

Sun 17th May 09:00 to 16:00 7 5 2

Elm Grove Fri 15th May 12:00 to 23:00 2 9 1 N/A

Church StreetFri 15th May 18:00 to 04:00 9 42 37

GoodSat 16th May 18:00 to 04:00 10 32 27

Private Ranks

Station

Thurs 14th May 20:00 to 00:00 4 166 161

GoodFri 15th May 07:00 to 00:00 17 121 120Sat 16th May 10:00 to 16:00 6 89 85Sun 17th May 12:00 to 16:00 4 85 80

3.17.2 In terms of when ranks were observed and were active, for the bulk of the sites surveyed in Brighton, the rank was active at nearly all times when surveyed. Key differences were Elm Grove which did not appear to be used much, Church Road, Hove, and Brunswick Place on the Thursday. Of special note is that both East Street and the private station rank are in use 24/7.

3.17.3 Some 38 different rank location / day survey sets were undertaken during the course of the rank observations. The table above compares vehicle supply with vehicle demand (using loaded departures rather than actual passenger numbers). This removes the impact of different occupancies and tests if there are enough vehicles servicing the actual demand.

3.17.4 The table is dominated by the Station and East Street ranks – at which every set of observations saw 71 or more loaded departures on average for each hour the rank was active in that period. This equates to 1.2 loaded vehicle departures per minute or more. The only other location which is included in this block is West Street on the Friday which saw 73 loaded



departures per hour on average. The top two demand locations in per hour terms are both at the private station rank – with Thursday coming out having 2.7 loaded vehicle departures per minute for the four hours which were observed. The Friday sees two loaded departures per minute. These are very high flows seen in very few locations around England.

3.17.5 The next level of demand observed falls to between 27 and 37 loaded departures per hour. This covers St Peter’s Place on the Saturday, West Street on Thursday, Queen Square on both Friday and Saturday and both sets of the informal Church Street observations. Eleven other sets see between 10 and 22 loaded departures, with just five locations seeing four or less – or less than a loaded vehicle departure every 15 minutes. Overall this shows a very active set of ranks for Brighton and Hove.

3.17.6 Comparing supply to demand, the top 20 ranks all see loaded demand in the order of between 74% and 97% of the supply of vehicles – showing various levels of spare capacity. The remaining sites see higher levels of spare capacity and vehicles waiting for passengers – some of which may be vehicles waiting to respond to radio calls. In general this shows a healthy balance between supply and demand for the area.

3.17.7 Of the 13 rank locations observed, eight (62%) see good service, whilst Elm Grove is not really serviced, and the remaining four see fair service. None see poor service at all.

3.17.8 Overall this shows an active and healthy hackney carriage industry in the Brighton and Hove licensing area which has some very high levels of demand and a requirement for vehicles to be servicing the area every hour of every day of the week.

3.18 Comparison of Total Demand with Previous Survey

3.18.1 The table below calculates a typical week from the observations undertaken in 2015 and compares to information from the previous survey. Ranks or pick-up locations are listed in descending order of passenger usage in 2015.

Rank

Pass

enge

rs p

er

week

, 201

5 su

rvey

% o

f tot

al d

eman

d at

loca

tion

Pass

enge

rs p

er

week

201

2 su

rvey

Station (private) 21,915 40 15,115 (41)

East Street 14,696 27 6,043 (16)

St Peter’s Place 4,093 7.5 1,957 (5)

West Street 2,710 5 3,370 (9)Church Street (informal) 2,626 5 n/a

Queen Square 2,595 5 2,777 (7)Hove Station 1,717 3 2,093 (6)Norton Road 1,460 2.5 1,202 (3)Paston Place 1,402 2.5 1,090 (3)

Brunswick Place 469 0.9 692 (2)Church Road 450 0.8 451 (1)

Old Ship 445 0.8 2,254 (6)Elm Grove 22 0.0 27 (0.0)

Goldstone Villas n/a 145 (0.0)Total 54,600

Growth from 2012 +47%Comparison to previous surveys

2015 +4% from 2009+46% since 2003



2012 -1% from 2003 37,2162009 +40% from 2003 52,5422006 +23% 46,3082003 37,500

Note – Total includes all observations at relevant points as available, both sets factored to full week from detail available.

3.18.2 Total rank-based usage of hackney carriages in Brighton and Hove in 2015 is estimated at some 54,600 passengers per week at all active locations. This is a 47% level of growth since 2012, and 4% up on the previous high figure of 2009. The decline from 2009 to 2012 has more than been reversed according to this calculation. Compared to 2003 there are now 46% more passengers.

3.18.3 Considering the split between ranks, the private station rank remains dominant and retains about the same 40% of all patronage as in 2012 (although the absolute number is up 45%). Only East Street takes more than a 7.5% share of rank patronage – with 27% in 2012 – both an actual and market share increase compared to 2012.

3.18.4 West Street and Hove Station, and to a lesser extent Queen Square, appear to have lost market and market share compared to 2012 whilst St Peter’s Place has seen both increase making it the third most popular rank in the area in 2012 with 7.5% of the passenger share.

3.18.5 Norton Road and Paston Place have remained about the same in market share. The Old Ship Inn rank also appears to have reduced usage and market share – falling from 6% in 2012 to 0.8% now.

3.18.6 Interestingly both Elm Grove and Church Road both have remarkably similar estimated weekly flows comparing 2015 and 2012.

3.18.7 The informal rank in Church Street in 2015 takes some 5% of demand making it the fifth largest demand location in the area.

3.19 Plate Activity Levels

3.19.1 A sample of active hackney carriage plate numbers was obtained on Friday 15th May covering 10 hours within the period between 14:15 and 03:00 the next day at three different locations (all near to major ranks or on routes that vehicles leaving major ranks would utilise). A total of 1,451 observations were obtained, of which 1,406 were clearly Brighton and Hove identifiable plate numbers. Of these, 417 different plates were observed – 75% of the fleet of 555 available for service at time of the survey.

3.19.2 This proportion is a high percentage of all vehicles, but not so high to suggest that vehicles were making themselves available when they would otherwise not have been (ie playing up). This also suggests an element of spare capacity as well as reflecting vehicles who may not have been working on that date for various reasons.

3.20 Application of the ISUD Index

3.20.1 The industry standard index of significant unmet demand (ISUD) has been used and developed since the initial Government guidance that limits could only apply if there was no significant unmet demand for the service of hackney carriage vehicles. Initially developed by a university, it was then adopted by one of the consultant groups undertaking surveys, developed further by them in the light of various court challenges, and most recently adopted as an ‘industry standard’ test utilised by most current practitioners of unmet demand studies.

3.20.2 The index is principally used to identify a statistical guide if observed unmet demand is in fact significant. Early in the process of developing the index, a cut-off point of 80 was identified beneath which no conclusion of unmet demand being significant had been drawn, and over



which all studies had concluded there was significant unmet demand. This level has become accepted as the guide. Once unmet demand has been identified as significant it is usual for a calculation to be undertaken to identify the exact number of new licences needed in order to reduce the significance of the unmet demand below the threshold – although this cannot be an exact science in terms of outcomes due to the high number of parameters involved in determining where new licences actually end up working – there is no way to guarantee that licences will focus on reducing the unmet demand at all.

3.20.3 In the case of Brighton and Hove, the private rail station rank should be excluded from the ISUD calculations as with the need for a supplementary permit and being on private land it is a location out of the Council control. Hence in such cases, even if more licences were issued the Council has absolutely no way to ensure they will be available hence the exclusion from the calculations in all our studies – although it remains important to review operation at these sites as the public rarely differentiate between ranks in a Council area.

3.20.4 The ISUD calculations draw from various elements of the work, reflecting statistics which seek to capture components of ‘significant unmet demand’ although principal inputs are from the rank surveys, factored to produce a typical week of observations based on the knowledge available to us.

3.20.5 The current index has two elements which can negate the need for use of the index by setting the value to zero. The first test relates to if there are any daytime hours (Monday to Friday 1000 to 1800) where people are observed to queue for hackney carriages. Using the direct outputs from the survey a value of 14.9% is estimated.

3.20.6 The other index that could be zero – proportion of passengers in hours in which waits occurred which was over 1 minute – was 0.88%.

3.20.7 The seasonality index is 1.0 since the surveys were undertaken in May 2015.

3.20.8 The area does not exhibit peaked demand, so this factor is 1.0.

3.20.9 Average passenger delay in minutes across the whole survey is 0.05 minutes.

3.20.10 From the public attitude work, the latent demand factor is 1.0157, assuming all who did not give an answer had not ever given up waiting – ie there were no hackney carriage relevant responses.

3.20.11 The ISUD index for is therefore calculated multiplying the above figures and is 0.67. This is tiny compared to the cut-off of 80 and indicates the rank and other survey data suggests there is no significant unmet demand at this time in the Brighton and Hove area.

3.21 Comparison to Previous Studies

3.21.1 The ISUD index was used in the last four previous studies. The Table below shows the change in specific indices between years to give an indication of the movement of the market during this twelve year spell. The surveys were all undertaken at the same time of year, so the seasonality index was 1.0 in all cases and has not been reported. There will be some differences arising from the specific sample hours used but in general an outline comparison is informative on the state of the hackney carriage market in Brighton and Hove since 2003.

Element 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003Average wait (mins) 0.05 0.18 0.72 0.73 1.11

Peak factor 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5% Queues in weekday daytime hours 14.9 2 7 6 5



% pass in hours with waiting over 1 minute 0.88 1.44 5.67 23 35Latent demand 1.074 1.224 n/a n/a n/aOverall index 0.71 0.32 16 50 97

3.21.2 The principal change that has occurred since 2012 is that the area does not exhibit as much peaky demand as it has done –with high flows at times other than during the traditional peaks. Average wait times have reduced in every survey.

3.21.3 There has been an increase in the proportion of queues in daytime hours since 2012 – resulting from the growth in demand observed. However, the proportion travelling in hours which have average delays over a minute has continued to decline, as has the latent demand index. The result is that the ISUD index in 2015 is higher than 2012, but not significantly so, and remains well under 1.0 – effectively continuing the trend downwards.

3.21.4 Further discussion occurs below to make use of this information in the decision regarding the significance or otherwise of unmet demand.



4 Public Consultation Results4.1 Methodology

4.1.1 An eighteen question survey was undertaken with 636 persons in the Brighton and Hove Council area (449 were obtained in 2012 made up of 252 on street / telephone and 197 via the council on-line consultation portal). In 2015, 127 came via the council portal and 509 were undertaken face to face on street.

4.2 On-street Results

4.2.1 The on-street surveys were undertaken around the Churchill Centre on Monday and Tuesday 18th/19th May, around London Road on Monday 18th May, in Hove on Wednesday 20th May and at the Marina on Thursday 9th July 2015. Responses were mainly from those available during the day time, following standard practise for these interviews. More details are provided in Appendix 4.

4.2.2 33% of those interviewed had used a licensed vehicle in the Brighton and Hove Council area in the last three months, a fair level of recent usage. However, in 2012, the recent user proportion was 70%, suggesting a fall in usage. The proportion was much lower at the Marina (14%) and much higher at London Road (47%) and in Hove (40%).

4.2.3 Of the respondents who told us they had used a licensed vehicle recently, many said how often they used a licensed vehicle. We have assumed the remaining non-respondents do not use licensed vehicles and calculated the average level of licensed vehicle trips per month per person below. On average, there are 1.5 person trips by licensed vehicle per month based on these assumptions, a moderate level but lower than other locations.

4.2.4 41% of interviewees told us how they obtained licensed vehicles in the Council area. By far the highest percentage got taxis at ranks (36%), with hailing also very high at 19%. 28% phoned a company, 10% used a mobile or smart phone and 7% used a freephone (a total of 45% by phone methods although many phoning companies could be calling hackney carriage vehicles). Across the area there was no significant difference in responses.

4.2.5 The use of phones was queried further, seeking to understand the companies that people used. Less than 10% of people responded giving a range of names or numbers (some of which are clearly corruptions of the correct name). 15% simply said ‘a local cab’ and 4% ‘a hackney carriage’. 9% named a hackney carriage radio circuit and 26% named a mixed fleet company. These responses suggest relatively high levels of competition but also that a lot of those phoning for vehicles will actually be booking hackney carriage rather than private hire vehicles.

4.2.6 People were asked if they thought that taxi companies that were phoned should be required to have a proportion of their fleet which was wheel chair accessible. 16% gave a response to this question with a very high proportion choosing not to respond at all. Of these 16% who did respond, 50% agreed, 24% disagreed, and 26% had no opinion. It is difficult to draw a firm conclusion from this response.

4.2.7 A set of questions were then asked relating specifically to use of hackney carriages. 25% of those questioned provided hackney carriage usage frequencies.

4.2.8 The first question asked how often people used them. Of those responding, an encouraging none said they could not remember seeing a hackney carriage in Brighton and Hove. 5% said however they could not remember when they had last used a hackney carriage.



4.2.9 Based on the 25% who gave an answer, and assuming everyone else did not use them, there are 1.3 hackney carriage trips per person per month in the Brighton and Hove area. Compared to the 1.5 licensed vehicle trips, this is around 87% of licensed vehicle usage – further highlighting how dominant hackney carriages are within the overall licensed vehicle fleet of the area.

4.2.10 When asked what sort of vehicle their last hackney carriage journey had been in, 22% overall gave a response. Of these, 67% said in a saloon, 14% in a WAV and 19% did not know which sort of vehicle they had used.

4.2.11 People were asked to name all the rank locations they were aware of in the Council area and if they used the locations they named or not. Several ranks were given ‘colloquial’ names, or by places they were near (eg Central station, ‘Hove’ or ‘town’).Overall there were 30 different places which received a total of 92 mentions.

4.2.12 When aggregated, about 20% of mentions were for Brighton Station, 17% for Queen Square (but called Churchill or Churchill Square), 14% for East Street, 3% for Hove Station, 2% for West Street, 1% for Hove Town Hall (Norton Road), 1% for the hospital (assumed to be Paston Place or Elm Grove) and 1% for St Peter’s Street. The only significant location not a rank which was mentioned was George Street (9%) (possibly George Street Hove where some interviews were undertaken, although there is no active rank here though vehicles might end up being hailed while driving through the pedestrian area).

4.2.13 This shows fair knowledge of ranks, and although three main ranks dominate, there remains relatively good apparent usage of many of the other ranks.

4.2.14 When asked about new locations, there were just a total of 11 responses none of which were significant.

4.2.15 The conclusion from these answers is that people generally know where to get taxis and have no strong views that more ranks are required at all.

4.2.16 When asked about if people had problems with the local hackney carriage service there were just 47 total responses suggesting people had no real issue with the service. It is not appropriate to draw any conclusions from this low response beyond the conclusion there is no significant issue.

4.2.17 More people responded to what might encourage them to use hackney carriages or use them more, although this only amounted to a total of 77 responses from all that gave any or multiple answers. As usual, cost was the top response (30%) followed by better vehicles and better located ranks. This again is not significant and suggests a general satisfaction with the service provided. However, it was significant that the two lowest responses were those saying they would use more hackney carriages if more could be hailed or phoned for – again suggesting satisfaction with availability.

4.2.18 People were asked if they or anyone they knew had a disability needing either a wheel chair accessible licensed vehicle, or a vehicle adapted in some other way. Just 16% responded, of which the bulk (96%) did not themselves need or know anyone who needed any adapted vehicle. All those wanting an adapted vehicle said wheelchair accessible style.

4.2.19 Of those answering if they had ever given up waiting for a hackney carriage, just eight people said they had – giving a latent demand factor of just 1.015.

4.2.20 22% responded to the question if they thought there were enough hackney carriages in the Brighton and Hove area. A resounding 91% said they thought there were.



4.2.21 The question about safety in vehicles gained a reasonable response. No-one responded they felt unsafe in the daytime, although 6% of all respondents said they felt unsafe at night time whilst 17% said they felt safe at night.

4.2.22 People were asked if they might use pedicabs were they introduced. 26% of people responded. Of these, 22% said they would use them frequently, 35% said occasionally and 43% said they would never use them.

4.2.23 55% said they had regular access to a car.

4.2.24 Our gender sample saw a higher proportion of men (56% compared to 50% in the 2015 census estimate). Our age sample saw under-representation of the older group (16% compared to 26%), with an over-representation of the middle group – 56% compared to 45% in the census. We saw about the right level for the younger group surveyed (28% compared to 29%. This is a generally representative sample.

4.3 Council Consultation Portal

4.3.1 A copy of the public on-street questionnaire was tailored for use on the council consultation portal. 127 responses were received. It is highly likely that the responses will come from licensed vehicle users given the nature of the advertising. The questionnaire is also written and so can see subtly different responses, and often a higher rate of response to all questions, particularly if completed by an on-line process which presents each question in sequence with option to complete more readily available. Due to the portal protocol further details of the responses made cannot be included in any Appendix.

4.3.2 Of the 127 respondents, 89% had used a taxi in the last three months in the Brighton and Hove area. All told us how many times they used licensed vehicles – with 4.2 trips per person per month.

4.3.3 In terms of how people normally got a taxi, 48% phoned, 36% used ranks, 8% used a mobile or smart phone, 5% hailed, 2% said ‘other’ and just 1% said Freephone. Many said their second and third methods.

4.3.4 104 of those responding gave company names they used. There were some 162 different mentions made – 13% of people said three companies, 29% said two an 58% just gave a single company. Of all the mentions, 53% said a mixed hackney carriage / private hire company, 26% said a radio cab company, 14% said another private hire mixed fleet company and the remainder were shared between six other companies.

4.3.5 With regard to if companies phoned should be required to have a certain percentage of their vehicles wheel chair accessible, 80% said yes; 10 said no and 10% were not sure or did not know.

4.3.6 In terms of frequency of usage, 11% said they could not remember when they last used a hackney carriage and 2% said they could not remember seeing one in Brighton and Hove. Assuming these people don’t use hackney carriages and using the same frequency assumptions as above, the remaining usage suggests people make 3.5 hackney carriage trips per person per month – 83% of the level made by all licensed vehicles and showing dominance of the hackney carriage in Brighton and Hove compared to the private hire vehicle element of the trade.

4.3.7 The last hackney carriage people used was a saloon for 50% of the respondents; 31% said a WAV and 19% were not sure.

4.3.8 People were asked which ranks they were aware of. 96% provided at least one rank. Of these, 74% gave three ranks, 20% gave 2 and the remaining 6% just said one. This gave a total of



327 mentions of ranks. When reviewed and some colloquial names were amended, 28% of mentions were Brighton Station, 20% East Street, 8% St Peter’s, 6% Hove Station, 4% Hove Town Hall, 4% Queen Square and 3% Paston Place. A number of other locations were mentioned, many which were colloquial names but others which did not appear to be ranks, but none had more than eight mentions, most just a single mention.

4.3.9 There was also a good response to the question of which ranks were used. In this case, 81% gave answers. Of these 38% said a single location, 35% two and 27% three – as expected showing some people know about ranks they do not use. There were less overall mentions – 195. However, the top four locations known about were also the top four used – 33% saying Brighton Station, 21% East Street,7% St Peter’s, 5% Hove Station, 5% Paston Place and 3% Queen Square. Again, a lot of other active ranks were named but so were many colloquial names and a few places we are not certain about.

4.3.10 When asked where new ranks would be preferred and if people would use them, 25% of all respondees made at least one specific response. Of these, 63% offered one location, 22% two and 15% three. 35 different places were suggested, but only one (Churchill Square) had a significant number of responses – 7 in total (14%) – although there is a rank in Queen Square which many people tend to call the Churchill Square rank. All these respondents said they would use a new rank there which might suggest signing from the main area might assist higher use of this actual location.

4.3.11 69% of the respondents gave at least one problem they had with the hackney carriage service. However, 61% of these had just a single issue, 18% had two issues, 15% had three and 6% had four issues. This provided 145 different mentions of issues. Of this total, 31% had driver issues, 25% had issues with delays getting vehicles, 14% had issues with design, 8% cleanliness and 6% with rank locations. Of the 16% with other issues, most referred to specific driver issues (poor driving, poor understanding or poor knowledge, lack of assistance or talking on the phone while driving in a foreign language). This suggests that improving driver skills would be important to those who responded.

4.3.12 A slightly higher number – 75% - gave reasons they would use hackney carriages or use them more. Two thirds of these gave two reasons. 13% took time to give specific ‘other’ comments (see below). Of the specified reasons 24% said if the drivers were better, 16% said if vehicles were better, 13% said if there were more hackney carriages at ranks, 10% if the fares were cheaper (a low response), 9% if there were more WAV, 8% more hackney carriages to phone for and 7% if more ranks. Many of the ‘other’ comments related to wanting cheaper fares or better drivers. A few asked for more pollution friendly vehicles and a few said their need was for saloon vehicles as they found WAV hard to get into. This response backs up the response to the issues section, mainly highlighting potential benefits of advance driver training.

4.3.13 People were asked if they or someone they knew needed an adapted vehicle, and if so if this was a WAV or another kind of adapted vehicle (not WAV). Most responded, of whom 64% said they did not need any adaptation nor did they know anyone who did. This is a relatively low response suggesting a higher proportion needing adapted vehicles than is usual in these surveys. Of those stating a vehicle type, 77% favoured the WAV style. A small number said they felt people needed a range of vehicles both adapted for wheel chair use and for other disabilities.

4.3.14 All but one person responded about if they had ever given up waiting for a hackney carriage in Brighton and Hove. 69% said they had not. The remaining 31% all gave locations they had given up waiting – many were Brighton Station although most other used ranks mainly in the centre of Brighton were mentioned.

4.3.15 81% of those responding felt there were enough hackney carriages available in the Brighton and Hove area.



4.3.16 In terms of feeling safe, again most people answered. Of those responding, 95% felt safe in the daytime and a reduced 87% felt safe at night. This shows low levels of concern – as expected, more at night than in the day.

4.3.17 Almost all responded re pedicabs with 50% saying they would never use them, 41% saying every so often and just 9% saying they would use them frequently.

4.3.18 66% had access to a car. 96% lived in the area. There was an under-representation of those 16-29 compared to the census (9% survey compared to 29% census) matched by an over-representation of the 30-55’s (66% responding in the survey compared to 45% in the population). The proportion of those 56+ responding was very similar to that in the census (25% survey compared to 26% in census).

4.4 Conclusion

4.4.1 A larger number of the public were involved in the consultation than in 2012 although the proportion via the consultation portal was less in 2015. The portal tended to include more recent users than those interviewed face to face, and portal users tended to answer more questions than those in the street. When those in the sample are compared, the portal tends to include more females, and less of the younger age group whilst the face to face work included more males and less of the older age group. Both over-represent the middle age group. Mixing the two samples slightly reduces the bias towards male responses and slightly reduces the over-representation of the middle group but does not provide a significantly better sample. For this reason we have not undertaken many ‘mixed’ result analysis and point out only where there is a difference between the two groups in our summary. We mainly focus on matters where both samples tend to agree.

4.4.2 There appears to have been some reduction in recent usage of licensed vehicles in the area since 2012 (although the portal sample focussed on recent users choosing to comment). Hackney carriage usage is dominant within the mix with around 85% of estimated trips being by hackney carriage. When all views are taken into account, hackney carriage only are 50% (36% rank and 14% hail) whilst phone methods also take 50% although some of those will be phoning hackney carriages.

4.4.3 Views are very clear that most if not all are aware of hackney carriages in the area, although 5-11% could not remember when they had last used one. The bulk of people thought their last hackney carriage journey was in a saloon vehicle although nearly a fifth could not remember or were not able to tell the difference.

4.4.4 Brighton Station, East Street and to a lesser extent Queen Square were the main ranks known about, but overall most active ranks were known to people, although there was a lot of usage of colloquial names and some evidence that Queen Square might need better signposting from the nearby shopping area in Churchill Square (mainly from the portal results). There were no real requirements for additional ranks. Whilst the on-street surveys found little issues in peoples’ minds about the service provided, there was a stronger view from the portal that there were issues.

4.4.5 Compared to 2012, cost appears to have reduced in significance as an issue but better driver standards seems to have become more significant – particularly in the portal sample.

4.4.6 As in many places, the highest proportion of people by some way do not need or know anyone who needs an adapted vehicle. However, for those that do, WAV appear to be strongly favoured, although the portal response did include some who made it clear that different disabilities needed different vehicle styles and that in some cases WAV might counter against specific disabilities, with saloons being better in some cases for getting in and out and for being heard if having hearing issues.



4.4.7 In terms of having given up, there was a strong difference between the portal and the on street results. The on street latent demand factor is 1.015 whilst that from the portal is 1.31 (closer to the 2012 value of 1.22). A mixed sample value would be 1.074 which seems more appropriate to use.

4.4.8 In 2012 60% said there were enough hackney carriages in the Brighton and Hove area. In 2015 this has risen to between 81 and 91%.

4.4.9 In terms of other matters, the highest proportion of people tended to agree with the suggestion that taxi companies who were phoned should have to have a proportion of their fleet wheel chair accessible. Panel results were more strongly in favour than those in the street, but the minimum percentage was 50%.

4.4.10 The proportion feeling safe in the daytime has increased from 2012 back towards the levels identified in 2009 – and very close to everyone feeling safe in the daytime (95-100%). The night value is now 74-87% compared to 76% in 2012 and 85% in 2009, effectively a similar trend of a feeling of generally increasing safety in using hackney carriages in the area.

4.4.11 The proportion who say they would use pedicabs regularly if introduced has risen from 10% in 2012 to 16% now, whilst the proportion saying they would never use them has fallen from 59% to 46%, but still the dominant response.

4.4.12 In general the overall public view of hackney carriages in Brighton and Hove is very positive, with them being well known and generally respected, although there is an undercurrent of potential need for the general improvement of driver skills – particularly from those responding from the portal (who are more regular users than those spoken to directly in the street).



5 Stakeholder Consultation5.1 Methodology

5.1.1 The following key stakeholders were contacted in line with the DfT Best Practice Guidance 2010:

Supermarkets

Hotels

Hospital

Pubwatch / night clubs

Disability representatives

Police

Rail operators

Other council contacts

County council contacts

5.1.2 Specific comments have been aggregated below to provide an overall appreciation of the current situation, although in some cases comments are specific to the needs of a particular stakeholder. It should be noted that the comments contained in this Chapter are the views of those consulted, and not that of the authors of this Report. Appendix 5 provides further details of those consulted. Whilst some of the consultation below was obtained at a face to face consultation day on Tuesday 7th July 2015 at the Town Hall, Brighton, other information was obtained by telephone / email / letter as appropriate.

5.1.3 The following persons / groups took time to attend the face to face consultation:

Brighton and Hove Head of Transport

Police Licensing Officer

A trade taxi company owner

Two persons representing the Private Hire Association

Two persons representing the Older Person’s Council

A GMB trade representative

5.1.4 Others sent apologies, with some providing written comments (see details in Appendix 5), and also below. Most of those invited to the key stakeholder day were also chased if they had not made contact, and some of those contacted forwarded the email / correspondence to others (we do not always have or are able to have for confidentiality reasons full details of these requests).



5.1.5 The licensed vehicle trade consultation is the subject of the following chapter and details from those attending the consultation day who were from the hackney carriage or private hire trade are included in that Chapter rather than below.

5.2 Supermarkets

5.2.1 Ten supermarkets were contacted. Seven responded, two did not answer our request and one refused to answer questions. Of those responding, six said their customers made regular use of local taxis. Four had in-store Free-phones one of which was direct to an operator. Two others said that their customers phone taxis using their own mobile phones. None said they were aware of any issues with the service provided.

5.3 Hotels

5.3.1 Seven hotels were contacted. Five responded, one did not respond whilst another did not respond to a message left for a ring-back. Three said they would book vehicles for customers. One said they booked 95% of taxis for customers whilst another said most of their customers made their own bookings but they would make bookings if asked. Four had no reported issues about the service provided. One hotel felt drivers were often rude, did not turn up, refused to help with luggage, or often left customers waiting to go to another fare.

5.4 Restaurants / Night venues

5.4.1 Five restaurants were contacted. Three replied, two saying customers used taxis regularly and another that they used them occasionally during the evening. One said their customers booked taxis themselves and they were not aware of any issues. Another said customers would book through the restaurant but that they would sometimes see customers find it easier to get a vehicle directly from the nearby rank (Palmyra Square). Some of their customers who booked had been annoyed by the drivers phoning to say they were outside several times – although this had reduced recently. Another said they would book for customers although some companies they used often ended up leaving customers waiting for some while.

5.4.2 Ten night / entertainment venues were contacted. Four replied and another said they were unable to respond as they were closed for a private contract. One said they had a direct phone customers could use, although they had issue with drivers starting meters on arrival at the pick-up rather than when customers boarded. One directs customers to the rank on Grand Parade but finds many are refused for ‘being drunk’. Another said customers booked taxis themselves and that they had no reported issues. Another would book taxis if asked although many customers booked them directly. They did have a disabled customer – who has their own taxi account – yet who often receives the wrong sort of vehicle for their disability.

5.5 Hospitals

5.5.1 Of the four hospital locations contacted, just one responded. They said they would often book taxis for patients and that no issues had been reported with the service provided. Another said that our survey was not applicable to them as they did not deal directly with patients coming to site nor visitors and could not advise us who would be involved with that.

5.6 Police

5.6.1 A representative of Sussex Police attended the face to face consultation. They told us there is a good relationship between the taxi trade in general and the police. Help is often provided in terms of missing persons and information about crime.

A major concern is over-ranking at night time, particularly with the situation along the A259 east of West Street which raises concerns regarding safety. There are similar



concerns when vehicles over-rank near East Street and around the roundabout there between the main and feeder rank. The police are keen to work with the trade, licensing and highways to seek some better resolution to these issues before safety issues force a response.

5.6.2 However, the contribution made by the overall trade to clearing the night time economy is also very important and welcomed. The police feel that there are fewer private hire vehicles around given the large volumes of hackney carriages which tend to ‘swamp’ the private hire at night. The marshals are also essential to the night operation.

5.6.3 They are also aware that older drivers tend to work day shifts and then pass the vehicle to younger drivers who look after the night shifts –getting the maximum out of each vehicle.

5.6.4 The police were also aware of an issue where Brighton and Hove vehicles had serviced an out of town high demand (Shoreham festival) and some drivers had taken advantage of people and charged exhorbitant fares (see also comments from a Councillor re this below).

5.7 Disability representatives

5.7.1 Thirteen groups representing various societies including disability groups were contacted. Three groups responded, one group attended the focus day, and two other individuals provided specific direct responses.

5.7.2 Two representatives from the Older Peoples’ Council attended the face to face focus day. This group has nine people elected by people – and are purely a campaign organisation.

5.7.3 They also took time to advertise the survey on their web site and obtained some response from people – mainly that they were generally satisfied with the service provided. However, there were some drivers who were not as helpful with customers wanting adapted vehicles of various styles. They told us that this echoed a report from three years ago which also pointed out training issues.

5.7.4 They pointed out that the city is very congested which often reduces response time by hackney carriage and private hire particularly to radio calls. They feel more vehicles might help reduce response times.

5.7.5 They are also concerned that people needing specific vehicles still have to book ahead or wait longer than others. However, they did not provide any further evidence about this.

5.7.6 They said there was an opportunity for demonstration of taxi vehicles and their potential options for those with disabilities at their Older People’s Day.

5.7.7 A representative from the FED spoke to us. They told us they regularly work with the three largest operators of hackney carriage and private hires. They like the flexibility of the fleet represented in the current Accessibility Policy. They still see issues around school times when general passenger waiting times, and more specifically those for people needing adapted vehicles, are higher. This is believed to be due to many of the accessible vehicles being used on school contracts.

5.7.8 They remain concerned about training issues – a recent delay was quoted of 40 minutes because the person who arrived did not know how to load the disabled person properly.

5.7.9 The FED have held training and exhibition days and highlight good practise whenever they can.

5.7.10 Brighton and Hove Speak Out made our survey known to their various contacts. They provided us a summary in July 2015 from the result of their request for comment. The



feedback came from two of the Advocacy groups and a total of 18 people, four of whom were wheelchair users.

5.7.11 They told us that some people with learning difficulties are totally reliant on taxi services to access the community safely whilst others use them to be safe at night. The role played by taxis is crucial in many lives. Most would find communication hard and use others to make taxi bookings for them. Many respondents found the issue of using ranks being that they would not know the driver, and when booking they usually preferred to be able to obtain a driver who knew them.

5.7.12 Some have wheel chairs that only fit in specific vehicles. Only a very small number use ranks – but when they do they find them ‘good’ and ‘useful’. However, wheel chair users found the Queen Square rank difficult because of the hill approach. Respondents were generally aware of a few ranks but not all the ones which the group knew were available.

5.7.13 Many of their respondents were concerned that drivers did not appear to be experienced in using wheel chair restraints.

5.7.14 They told us their respondents were concerned about overcharging either by starting the meter before they were in the vehicle or by suspecting drivers were going a longer route to their destination.

5.7.15 Speak Out made a number of recommendations from their review including need for review of Queen Square rank and encouraging companies to be better able to service the needs of those with learning difficulties.

5.7.16 Thumbs Up told us they had no views regarding taxi services and their clients. Other groups (as listed in Appendix 5) either were not contactable or did not respond during the time available often despite several reminders.

5.7.17 One individual customer told us their main concern was about driver standards – particularly a tendency for driving too fast and for pulling out in front of other vehicles. There were also issues with communication with drivers at times. One concern was seeing satnav being used in hackney carriage vehicles at times.

5.7.18 They had heard of some drivers not being able to work particular ranks as they were dominated by specific groups of drivers but had little evidence for this.

5.7.19 They felt more were needed away from the hotspots – they felt that the trade focussed on the three main night venues and might need some better form of management of where they all went to find custom.

5.7.20 Another individual customer was concerned about potential over-reliance on a ‘one size fits all’ focus in regard to vehicle type and disabilities, and expressed concern that some disabilities were better serviced by saloon vehicles than by wheel chair accessible styles.

5.8 Other Council Representatives

5.8.1 The Head of Transport for Brighton and Hove Council attended the face to face focus group. They told us they felt the licensed vehicles blended well with other transport provision within a constrained transport network. They helped provide maximum choice and capacity. Hackney carriage and private hire are fully recognised within the transport hierarchy and within the transport partnership. This is against the background of general public transport growth of 5% per year, a doubling over 20 years, with public transport usage second only to London. Night buses have also expanded over the recent years.



5.8.2 There is acknowledgment that the trade often claim there are too many vehicles and too few ranks, but the Council are aware that the trade tend to focus on a relatively small number of ranks. There has also been a pressure group from within the taxi trade opposing some elements of transport policy.

5.8.3 It is accepted that there is pressure for more rank spaces at the Hospital but local pressure for parking makes it hard to add more spaces.

5.8.4 The Director with responsibility for taxi licensing commented that the current system with restricted numbers and managed growth appeared to serve the City well, but that current challenges relate to ensuring issues related to child sexual exploitation were taken on board, as well as the impact of the Deregulation Bill and the impact of private hire operations related to use of ‘apps’.

5.8.5 A representative from Tourism and Venues spoke to us. They told us there is little waiting at the station or at ranks. High levels of use of technology by companies is also noted.

5.8.6 They told us the biggest issue was the variability in driver quality – there were some excellent drivers and some who were not so good.

5.8.7 The Home to School Transport section were unable to respond within the timeframe for the study. Some other parts of the council also told us they were unable to respond or had no comments.

5.8.8 They were considering the idea of ‘ambassador’ programmes – particularly as it was clear that for the tourist trade, people often first met a taxi driver and were strongly influenced by them in their experience of Brighton and Hove.

5.8.9 They told us of the Summer 2014 visitor survey which gave taxis 8.5 out of 10, compared to 7.9 in 2009 – an important improvement in the service people visiting the area felt.

5.8.10 A representative from highways said their main concerns were that current ranks were sufficient in size and in the right places, and that new ranks would need good evidence to allow them to move forward where there is significant pressure on road space for various users. They acknowledged that the demand data from the report might provide some evidence for evaluation current rank operation.

5.9 Other Representatives

5.9.1 A councillor from the licensing committee spoke with us.

5.9.2 They had two concerns reported to them. The first (and most relevant to this study) was reporting of concern about the informal rank at Church Street. This is near the Corn Exchange. They noted that the location was being used by the public exactly as they would use a formal rank – with vehicles there with ‘for hire’ lights illuminated and people walking to the first car to take that to leave.

5.9.3 They felt the issues with this operation related to obstruction of the dropped kerb and tactile paving at the crossing of Church Street at the northern end of New Road – hazardous for visually and other mobility impaired persons. It also leads to overtaking westbound traffic having to move into the cycle lane and conflicting with any cyclists using that lane which is mandatory at that point.

5.9.4 The other issue was that raised by the police about out of town service by hackney carriage and private hire to the Shoreham Festival – although this is less of relevance to the main issue of this report (although it perhaps suggests people feel need to identify other opportunities to work).



5.10 Rail and Bus Operators

5.10.1 Three bus and one rail operator were contacted to understand if they had any comments re the current hackney carriage and private hire operations in Brighton and Hove. One responded to say they had no comment, the others did not respond during the time available although the rail operator tried to identify a member of staff able to attend the face to face day without success.

5.10.2 National statistics are publicly available showing the total number of entries and exits at each rail station in the United Kingdom. These numbers are calculated using ticket barrier and ticket issue information from ticket sales. The Table below shows information from 1997/1998 to date. The figures after the station name show the position in rank in terms of usage of English, Welsh and Scottish railway stations, with the smallest usage being the 2,533rd station and the highest being 1st in the list (Waterloo, London). Within the Brighton and Hove area there are eight stations. Brighton is by far the busiest, with nearly 17m passengers in the last available year of statistics (ending April 2014). This places it the 22nd busiest station on the English, Welsh and Scottish rail networks.

5.10.3 Hove is the 221st busiest station with some 2,421,536 entries and exits, followed by Falmer (401st with 1,316,550), Portslade (484th with 1,101,650), London Road Brighton (862nd with 493,874), Preston Park (925th with 439,262), Moulescoomb (946th with 419,526) and Aldrington (1,274th with 226,936). A full profile for Brighton over the years is given below to show how background flows which might feed the taxi rank there have been developing. Many of the above stations have higher flows than many central stations in other authorities which have active taxi ranks although the above stations are generally not located in larger urban centres (apart from Hove although even that station is a little way from the main shopping area).

5.10.4 The train taxi internet guide suggests that Brighton is a major station with an active rank and that advanced booking is not necessary or possible. Three operators are suggested, one of whom is stated to have WAV style vehicles (a hackney carriage radio network). Hove is the only other station correctly identified as having a rank – suggesting availability should be checked and a booking made if necessary. There is just one large private hire operator (no WAV provision quoted) suggested. The remaining six stations are correctly identified as having no rank or office and a need for pre-booking if taxi connections are wanted. Three of these suggest the same three phone numbers as Brighton, one suggests a set with one company different (the WAV number is still included), one suggests a single (non WAV) company and the final station has the suggestion people should travel to Brighton or Lewes if they want an onwards taxi connection. The train taxi record is correct although we are aware that more companies should be advertising WAV ability.



Rail year (ends March in last year noted)

Entries / exits Growth / decline

Brighton (22nd)1997 / 1998 7,376,192 n/a1998 / 1999 8,309,344 +13%1999 / 2000 8,930,344 +7%2000 / 2001 9,282,656 +4%2001 / 2002 10,153,601 +9%2002 / 2003 10,368,208 +2%2003 / 2004 Not collected2004 / 2005 11,295,080 +9%2005 / 2006 11,854,512 +5%2006 / 2007 12,853,442 +8%2007 / 2008 13,474,555 +5%2008 / 2009 13,806,628 +2%2009 / 2010 13,741,582 -0.5%2010 / 2011 14,493,010 +5%2011 / 2012 16,052,520 +11%2012 / 2013 16,187,024 +1%2013 / 2014 16,940,764 +5%

Last three years (10/11 to 13/14) +17%

5.10.5 The last three year period for the rail statistics has seen some 17% growth – this can be used as a proxy for growth between the last survey in 2012 and now given that more recent data for the rail flows is not yet available.



6 Licensed Vehicle Trade Consultation6.1 Trade Consultation

6.1.1 A letter was issued to all licensed drivers by the Council inviting them to complete a questionnaire about their current service to the public, and their views on the policy of limiting hackney carriage numbers. This letter was issued to all current drivers (including those in the private hire trade to cover Best Practise Guidance requirements). In the order of 2,000 letters were issued, some of which were duplicates given that some drivers are also owners. All responses were returned to CTS using a freepost address provided by CTS or submitted using an on-line web-based version of the questionnaire. The close date set was mid July.

6.1.2 In addition, 13 trade groups were invited to the face to face discussion day. Five of these groups attended, with two other groups responding by phone but not attending. One driver contacted us directly to provide direct views whilst six groups gave no response at all despite a number of attempts to contact them.

6.1.3 Some 105 responses were received (5%), a fair response for this type of survey. This is much less than the 635 returned in 2012. 68% were from hackney carriage drivers and the remaining 32% from those who said they drove private hire vehicles (a slightly higher response from private hire than in 2012). This is very close to the split between driver types at the present time. 69% owned and drove their own vehicles. 48% said someone else drove their vehicle. 82% of respondents said they operated on a radio circuit. This appears to be an increase from 2012 when the driver survey suggested 70% of hackney carriage and 90% of private hire were on a radio circuit.

6.1.4 77% of those responding told us which companies they operated for. Of these, 60% were for the same largest company most people quoted, the next largest company had 21% (hackney carriage only), another company had 14% and three other companies less than 2% each (one of which was actually another trading name of the hackney carriage only company).

6.1.5 Those responding had, on average, been involved with the licensed vehicle trade as drivers for 20 years (but ranging from one to 43 years). They tended to work 6 days per week for an average of 43 hours per week (similar to 2012). The range of days worked was between none and 7. The range of hours was from 0 to 80. This demonstrates some owners who did not drive or operators responded.

6.1.6 People were asked the factors which influenced their shift patterns. The largest proportion, 28% worked at busy times or when they knew there was highest demand. 23% said they worked the hours they preferred to but gave no more detail. 16% worked around family commitments. 11% avoided hours with traffic congestion whilst 11% had hours affected by the fact they shared a vehicle. Just 5% avoided times they expected drunken, violent or abusive customers and 4% said they worked ‘sociable hours’.

6.1.7 Those operating hackney carriages told us the ranks they used. 67 drivers responded to this question (those that were hackney carriage plus one operator). 21 said ‘all ranks’ and one said ‘all but the Station’. The remaining 45 gave some 132 responses. East Street saw 21% of these responses, followed by the Station (18%), West Street (9%), Queen Square (8%), Hove Town Hall (6%), St Peter’s (6%) and Paston Place 5%. Four other known ranks were mentioned together with some other unknown locations as well as some mention of little used ranks (eg the National Express Coach station rank).

6.1.8 Two thirds of those giving a reply said there were too few ranks and spaces for hackney carriages. 18% backed this up with comments about over-ranking. The only other significant comment was need for a safe and practical place to set down at the Station.



6.1.9 People gave the methods they obtained their fares. Some 179 responses were received in total. 44% of these responses said they obtained fares most frequently from phone bookings, 35% from ranks and 18% from hailing.

6.1.10 In terms of the limit policy, 90% said the current policy of limiting should remain and 10% said it should not (higher than in 2012). Most responded to this question – 96%. 78% told us what their reaction would be if the limit were either increased or removed. Of the responses, 59% said they would leave the trade. A few said they might try to take some form of action, several would be ‘disappointed’ whilst some said they would work longer whilst others said they would work less.

6.1.11 Of the responses about why the limit should be retained, 42% said it encouraged clean, safe, well-maintained vehicles whilst 38% said it either stopped or reduced the potential over-ranking. 10% felt it encouraged ranks to be always available whilst a further 10% felt it helped reduce potential for public safety issues with pollution, over-tired drivers or other issues related to there being too many vehicles.

6.1.12 Many comments were made. Most related to there being too many vehicles, no unmet demand, and a feeling that the public seemed to believe there were too many vehicles.

6.1.13 Other comments were made by those attending the face to face sessions. These came from a mixed fleet operator, the hackney carriage radio circuit, the private hire driver representative and a hackney carriage union representative and covered a wide range of those involved in the Brighton and Hove hackney carriage and private hire trade. Comments included:

There is a shortage of rank space in the right places particularly at night

East Street could be fed through Castle Street from Old Steine if extra spaces were put there

This section of road should also have a 20mph limit introduced and enforced to improve safety concerns

The current West Street feeder arrangements work well at night

The informal ranks along the front work well for those coming up from the venues along the Lower Promenade

There are issues around getting to ranks around the West Street / Old Ship Inn location related to traffic regulation on Ship Street – and proposed changes to Boyces Street would worsen the situation

The Church Street informal rank works well

A rank at New Road was lost but that location is now used

West Street is not useful in the day time given issues with vehicles waiting to enter the car park

The station permit is £600 per year and taken by around 400 plates

There are believed to be around 25-33% of the hcv fleet remaining independent from companies

There are about twelve small independent private hire companies



With many hcv on private hire circuits true private hire companies struggle to obtain sufficient trade

Illegal ranking supplants private hire bookings in some places – for example at the Marina where there is no formal rank

There is need for private hire pick-up at the station to be properly provided for – the ‘at the back’ provision (off Stroudley Road) is too distant for passengers

Some feel that drivers tend to consider there is little late night enforcement and can then tend to act inappropriately

The private hire representative listens to drivers and represents their issues on the Forum – generally drivers work well with the established private hire companies

The largest private hire company in the area is mainly hackney carriage vehicles

The five additional WAV added every year to the hackney carriage fleet tend to be private hire drivers transferring

There are people who say they can’t use particular vehicles who are not aware of the options available (eg a lady said she could not use a Tx but when shown the swivel seat became very enthusiastic of the type)

For WAV to be effective they need to be accessible by phone – and most understand that most work for their specific facilities will tend to come by phone

Many WAV remain independent which can be an issue for true accessibility

WAV style work is encouraged by various means

People also have choice and some wheel chair passengers prefer to transfer and have the wheel chair in the boot

It is felt that no-one can easily ever say there are never enough WAV

Some would prefer the hackney carriage fleet to be fully WAV

There is concern how the WAV increase is calculated, in particular the wording of the request for any taxi

This is compounded by the unmet demand and WAV proportion / increase issues being confused within a single presentation

It has been suggested that companies with more than ten vehicles need to be encouraged to have a given proportion of WAV

Current rules mean that any transferred hcv licences also need to become WAV as well as the extra five plates per year

It is known there was an issue with Brighton vehicles serving the festival in Adur – but needs a joint approach as that authority does not have sufficient vehicles to meet that peak

The trade are aware that a new Tower being developed will see up to 800,000 visitors a year, many of whom will want to use licensed vehicle services



There are concerns about driver standards

There is concern that cctv footage can be tampered with

On this basis it was suggested that the cctv controller should be independent of any company

6.1.14 In summary, there is a lot of activity in the overall licensed vehicle industry in Brighton and Hove. There appears to be consensus that the current limit is working well. Within this, there are detailed issues with the active ranks and more concerns about what the real situation in regard to need for WAV-style vehicles actually is. Further discussion occurs in the synthesis chapter seeing these comments in context and in proper order.



7 Review of Demand for Wheel Chair Accessible Vehicles

7.1 Context

7.1.1 Whilst several sections of the Equality Act (EA) affect licensed vehicle operations, the key provision relevant to this report is the requirement under section 161 that any authority with a limit on the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences should issue licences to wheel chair accessible vehicles (WAV) until an agreed percentage of the fleet were such WAV style. The last guidance in regard to timescales for introduction of this regulation saw consultation occurring around this point in time – although nothing has yet been issued by the Department for Transport, nor appears likely in the foreseeable future. Brighton and Hove currently has a limit on overall numbers and this section of the Act would apply if ever enacted.

7.1.2 The Equality Act is national legislation which cannot be amended by the Council or its officers. Current thought suggests that the required proportion of WAV style vehicles expected for the Council area might be of the order of 35%. At the present time, the city has 40% of its vehicles wheel chair accessible. Much of this provision has come from plate issues, with any new licences having to be wheel chair accessible (with a fairly wide range of vehicles allowed). This suggests that Brighton and Hove would be compliant even with the level of vehicles at the time of the survey. It must be remembered however that this section of the Equality Act is not in force, nor is it clear if and when it will be. It may be superseded by actions taken following the Law Commission although there will also be interpretation around how this ties in as well.

7.1.3 Recent surveys for Brighton and Hove have always included additional research to test if there needs to be a further manged increase in the number of WAV style vehicles in the fleet. Since the survey, the next tranche of five WAV plates have been issued. This takes the current level of hackney carriages to 560, with the proportion now at 40.5% of the hackney carriage fleet. In addition about 12% of the private hire vehicle fleet are wheel chair accessible by choice. Both proportions are much higher than in 2012 when hcv WAV were 31% and phv WAV 8% (which suggests new WAV come from the saloon side of the phv fleet not the WAV side).

7.2 Observed Usage at Ranks

7.2.1 During the course of our rank surveys five people were observed using ranks with wheel chairs and leaving in WAV style vehicles. This appears to be low compared to some other recent studies. Four other people had other visible disabilities and 99 passengers were assisted by drivers for some reason (may or may not be disability). Of all the rank departures, 52% were by WAV style vehicles – high given that they only make up 40% of the fleet.

7.3 Comaparability to Other Areas

7.3.1 Brighton has undertaken an impressive rise in the level of WAV style vehicles in the hackney carriage (and private hire) fleets. In 1997, just 10% of the hackney carriage fleet was WAV. By 2011, this had risen to 25%. It is currently 40.5%. Other than 100% WAV fleets, Brighton and Hove has the third highest proportion of WAV in the comparator list of authorities, and is substantially higher than many other comparator authorities. Brighton and Hove now effectively has exactly the English average level of WAV in its fleet from the latest DfT statistics. Fairly uniquely for an authority with high WAV hackney carriage proportions, the proportion of WAV in the private hire fleet is very high at 12%, four times the national average of around 3% at this time. This is interesting as the effect of a fully WAV hackney carriage fleet can often be no WAV in the private hire fleet at all.



7.4 National Levels of Disability

7.4.1 There are few specific markers of levels of disability. Those used in 2012 have now been replaced by ESA and PIP (see Chapter 2 for further definition and detail). Using ESA as a proxy sees Brighton and Hove similar to 2012, in a mid-table position in terms of disability need. The PIP proxy shows Brighton having very low levels of disability need in 2015 when this value was also mid-table in 2012. This may be a result of how the PIP are estimated and measured.

7.4.2 In terms of the public attitude and council portal public views, 96% face to face and 64% of portal respondents did not need, nor knew anyone needing a WAV or adapted vehicle – tending to show relatively low overall need levels. Those that responded that they either needed or knew people who needed adapted vehicle however favoured WAV style.

7.4.3 When people were asked about if companies should be required to have a proportion of vehicles WAV the higher proportion in both face to face and portal responses agreed with the idea, although the portal was much more favourable to that idea, and had a stronger level of response than the face to face review.

7.5 Consultees

7.5.1 There was a high level of involvement from groups representing those with a wide range of disabilities, and from individuals contacting us about this issue. While many held the view there still needed to be more WAV, there was more emphasis on detailed issues relating to which vehicles were able to suit which needs, issues with what wheel chairs could fit into particular – or any – vehicles, and more importantly concerns about lack of active knowledge by drivers of how to handle wheel chairs and those with disabilities – some leading to dangerous situations (as is often the case in many areas). Whilst it is understood that drivers may all have received training an issue is the high numbers of WAV vehicle, and the relatively low actual experience of drivers having to use their skills day to day.

7.5.2 One trade representative gave a key example of how a person with a disability who felt WAV were not suitable for them was shown one specific facility which then made them big fans of the vehicle they had previously shunned. There were several options put forward whereby those with disabilities might be able to experience different vehicle types and learn how their needs might be better met which seemed to be a good way forward.

7.6 The Telephone Test

7.6.1 As in 2012, 40 test phone-calls were made to phone numbers in Brighton which those with disabilities might call if they needed an adapted vehicle. This includes both hackney carriage radio circuits and large private hire companies as in 2012. Whilst we confirm that this test is clearly more ‘private hire’ focussed being by phone, it is also useful to compare how things have changed over time and one way by which peoples’ options to travel can be reviewed.

7.6.2 In the discussion below, we have used the same terminology as in 2012 for the sake of comparison. Whilst this may not be the most preferable way of explaining or terming the test, the focus needs to be on the results and not simply any implications from specific wording.

7.6.3 In 2012, the minimum and maximum quoted wait time for both standard and accessible vehicles was five to 60 minutes. In 2015, whilst the minimum of five minutes remained the same, the maximum reduced to 20 minutes for standard and 30 minutes for accessible vehicles. This demonstrates an overall significant improvement for both groups, although clearly a better result for those wishing a standard vehicle.



7.6.4 The average wait time was 15 minutes (standard) and 32 minutes (accessible) in 2012. This measure has seen improvement again for both groups, but more significant reduction to 19 minutes for accessible (40% decrease) and 12 minutes for standard (20% decrease). This is a more favourable result for the accessible group suggesting the impact of the at least 15 extra vehicles added since 2012 has been very positive.

7.6.5 The calculation for extra vehicles needed in 2012 suggested the discrepancy was an additional 230 WAV. Undertaking the same calculation in 2015 suggests an extra 139. This is a huge reduction in the shortfall and suggests the last three years has seen a significant improvement in service for those with disabilities.

7.6.6 This can be set in context by comparing the 203 total WAV available in 2012 to the 279 now available – a 37% increase and way beyond the formal 15 added by the additional plate part of the policy.

7.6.7 Further discussion of the implication of these results follows in the chapter below.



8 Summary and Conclusions8.1 Policy Background

8.1.1 Brighton and Hove has been unitary since 1997 and a City since 2001. All highway and transport policy powers are under the authorities’ control. Background transport policy is set in LTP4, approved in March 2015. Performance statistics within LTP4 suggest the overall licensed vehicle service is valued and appreciated by local people. There is a commitment to investing in taxi ranks as key vehicle / people interchanges.

8.1.2 The authority has restricted hackney carriage vehicle numbers since 1986 and possibly before under the pre-1985 Transport Act legislation. More recently, there has been a managed growth policy seeing WAV style hackney carriages allowed to grow by five new plates per year, whilst other saloon plates changing hands also need to be replaced by a WAV.

8.2 Statistical Background

8.2.1 Since 1994 there has been 25% growth in the hackney carriage fleet, with the present fleet being 560 strong (from June 2015). From 1997 to date private hire numbers have grown 28% - a very similar level (but of course not limited and led by market forces). Hackney carriage driver numbers have, however, remained very similar over the period suggesting that most new plates have come from drivers who previously shared vehicles gaining their own vehicle. However, the hackney carriage driver ratio remains high at 2.2 suggesting a high usage of current vehicles still continues. Private hire driver numbers have grown beyond the growth in vehicle numbers.

8.2.2 Comparing to other similar authorities, Brighton and Hove has the second highest provision of hackney carriages to population, and twice the English average excluding London. Private hire provision is tenth compared to the other authorities – demonstrating how hackney carriages dominate the total licensed vehicle fleet. Overall licensed vehicle provision however is mid-table with the low private hire provision compared to other places. This suggests that the higher usage of the hackney carriage fleet implies more people are serviced by a lower overall number of vehicles.

8.2.3 Local fares are high (in common with many other tourist areas) but also within this group, and most certainly compared to neighbouring authorities.

8.3 Rank Survey Results

8.3.1 The authority has some 64 different rank sections defined, but there are principally 11 specific ranks in regular daily usage, plus the private station facility which requires a supplementary permit out of the control of the local authority. There are a handful of ‘informal’ rank locations in regular use.

8.3.2 Our rank sample covered some 340 hours and 14,410 different vehicle movements. Ranks are generally well complied with and we only saw 1% of the above being car abuse, 0.5% goods vehicle abuse and next to no usage by either emergency vehicles or private hire vehicles. The split between saloon and hackney carriage vehicles in terms of departures from the ranks was 52% in favour of WAV.

8.3.3 Estimated weekly patronage is now 46% higher than in 2003, and the decline seen from 2009 to 2012 has now been more than reversed with current estimated levels the highest in the survey results available – some 54,600 passengers per week from active ranks. For the sake of clarity this excludes hailing of hackney carriages (which is also high) and any phone booking of their services.



8.3.4 The busiest rank is the private Station rank which retains 40% of patronage – similar to 2012 in proportion (but with a much higher overall volume). East Street takes 27% (more than in 2012). St Peter’s Place rank has increased its usage and market share to become the third busiest rank in 2015. West Street, Hove Station and Queen Square have all lost actual volumes and market share since 2012. The informal Church Street location is placed fifth in overall usage levels.

8.3.5 There do not appear to be any other ranks which have come into use since 2012, nor any that have dropped significantly out of the picture (apart from Elm Grove). Levels of rank usage are very high for the Station and East Street. The busiest period saw an average of 2.7 loaded hackney carriages per minute departing; the Station and East Street never saw less than an average of 1.2 loaded vehicle departures per minute. These two ranks are also tending to operating 24/7. Even lesser used ranks are busier than many principal ranks in other authorities.

8.3.6 The plate sample identified 75% of the fleet active on the Friday of the survey.

8.3.7 The industry standard ISUD index was 0.67 (well less than the level of 80 defined as identifying significant unmet demand). This is higher than in 2012, but much lower than numbers observed in the three previous surveys. Average waiting time for passengers has continued to reduce, as has the proportion of passengers waiting in hours with queues where average waiting time is over a minute. Only the percentage of queues in weekday daytime hours has increased alongside the change of the peak factor to demonstrate that the demand tends to being flatter than peaked in the area.

8.4 Public Consultation

8.4.1 As in 2012, both face to face on street and council portal interviews were undertaken with members of the general public in the Brighton and Hove area. In 2015, 127 council portal and 509 direct on street interviews were completed and included in the analysis. Portal users tended to be willing to answer more questions and appears to include more recent licensed vehicle service users than the random on street information.

8.4.2 Since 2012 recent usage of licensed vehicles has reduced a little. Estimated levels of trip making suggest 85% of all trips are by hackney carriage although the split by stated method of use is 36% rank, 14% hail and 50% phone (although some of the discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that many of the 50% phone will be in hackney carriages).

8.4.3 Hackney carriages are well-known in the area and only a small proportion could not remember the last time they had used one. Most thought their last hackney carriage journey was in a saloon although a fifth could not remember or could not tell the difference.

8.4.4 Most active ranks were known to people, but the Station, East Street and Queen Square were the top three mentioned. Some evidence existed suggesting Queen Square needed to be better signed from the nearby shops. There was little demand for any new ranks.

8.4.5 Main issues focussed on driver standards and cost seemed to have reduced in importance.

8.4.6 Latent demand between the two groups was 7.4%, relatively low – though this was where the portal and face to face samples differed the most (ranging from 31% portal to 1.5% face to face).

8.4.7 Feeling safe has increased both for daytime and night time usage of hackney carriages.

8.4.8 Potential usage of pedicabs has risen whilst those saying they would definitely not use them has fallen, although the definite usage is still very low at 16% of respondents overall.



8.4.9 Overall, the general view of hackney carriages in Brighton and Hove is very positive, with them being well-known and generally respected.

8.5 Stakeholder Consultation

8.5.1 Overall stakeholder consultation in the area was very positive and very strong compared to other areas. The only poor response related to the hospitals.

8.5.2 The police main concern related to over-ranking issues. Otherwise, the overall licensed vehicle trade makes a very positive contribution to the area and to safety in the area.

8.5.3 Disabled groups and individuals were very interested in providing feedback. The overall tone of their views was need for attention to detail, relating to driver skills and increasing understanding of what different vehicles could and could not do for different disabilities. There is a lot of current working between these groups and the trade, but even more opportunity for this to increase further. An improvement in scores of taxis in the Visitor Survey was reported. An ambassador programme was suggested, as was use of the rank survey data to help evaluate current rank operation.

8.5.4 Whilst there were no comments from the public transport trade, the last three years had seen 17% growth at Brighton station in terms of entries and exits, which supported the observed growth in usage of hackney carriage there and from other ranks.

8.6 Trade Consultation

8.6.1 A positive trade consultation, including representatives and drivers from both sides of the trade was undertaken. There was a good breadth and length of experience represented in the trade. 28% worked at busy times whilst others worked around family commitments or preferred working times, although to a lesser degree. The lowest percentages worked to avoid congestion or difficult customers.

8.6.2 A third reported using ‘all ranks’ whilst of ranks specifically mentioned the top rank was East Street followed by the Station. There were concerns about shortage of rank spaces and about set-down for all vehicles at the Station. There was high support for retaining the limit – increased from 2012. Some reasons were given, mainly focussing on vehicle standards and keeping over-ranking more in check.

8.6.3 Detailed comments were made about rank operation, particularly related to night operations with suggestions for East Street and concerns about potential changes to street operation that could impact on West Street and the Ship ranks.

8.6.4 Concern was expressed about how the WAV telephone survey was undertaken but generally mixed views about where the current WAV policies should go. There was a clear suggestion that practical action was needed to keep drivers active on how to deal with those with disabilities and perhaps take opportunities to widen WAV use by working with potential customers to explain the potential of different vehicles.

8.7 Disability Issues

8.7.1 Our review of issues surrounding disability and use of hackney carriages and the overall licensed vehicle fleet found encouragements that those with disabilities are generally getting a better service now than in 2012. The ‘telephone’ test demonstrates improvement for all licensed vehicle users in service provided. The tool developed to measure disparity and the number of vehicles needed to reduce this showed a significant improvement over the last three years. Available WAV’s have increased 37% in the period – way beyond the number provided by the extra five plates per year (although it is not clear how many came from the policy requiring plate ownership changes to be WAV). Brighton and Hove has now reached



the point where the level of hackney carriage WAV is equal to the national English average excluding London, though private hire WAV levels are three times the average.

8.7.2 A very significant point is the willingness of everyone to identify ways by which the opportunities of WAV and the needs of those with disabilities can be matched and developed. This includes driver options but also options whereby those needing adapted vehicles can also be given opportunities to learn and experience.

8.8 Synthesis and Conclusions

8.8.1 The weight of evidence from all sources is that there is no significant unmet demand for the service of hackney carriage vehicles, either patent or latent in Brighton and Hove at this point in time. There is no requirement or need for additional vehicles from the pure demand point of view.

8.8.2 It is also clear that demand is growing and that there is future potential for even more requirement for licensed vehicle services in the area.

8.8.3 Current rank provision in general is sufficient although there is need to consider detailed operation of the West Street, Ship Inn and East Street night ranks to maintain and develop improved safety for passengers and vehicles alike. There is a strong need for identifying a clear solution to cover the Church Street informal rank with appropriate formal provision. This may need some tough decisions but public demand is clear.

8.8.4 Some way of checking and reviewing actual driver behaviour on a regular basis is needed to help prevent passenger confidence beginning to reduce. The present service is very well appreciated but the comments received suggest that, unless tackled now, this issue could become an Achilles heel and could lead to reduction in confidence in due course. The idea of training drivers as Ambassadors has been used over many years in many tourist places (eg Welcome Host) and these ideas hold merit.

8.8.5 There is a concensus that service to those with disabilities is generally improving within both the hackney carriage and private hire fleets but a willingness to take this onwards and upwards on both sides. There is a concern that at some point the level of saloon vehicles will reduce whereby their specific contribution to customer need might be prejudiced – the issues around this need to be discussed (see below).

8.8.6 There is no evidence that the situation for those with disabilities is getting worse, in fact the opposite is clearly true.

8.8.7 There is evidence that adding five plates per year does appear to be keeping overall demand in line with overall supply as well as improving the situation for those with disabilities but there is need to understand the potential for diminishing returns in the latter respect and need to understand what the appropriate level of saloon vehicles might be if there is no eventual aim of becoming fully WAV.



9 Recommendations9.1 Limits on the Number of Hackney Carriage Vehicles

9.1.1 At the present time there is no requirement for further plates to be issued from the point of view of current demand. The limit policy can therefore be retained as long as regular review continues.

9.2 Rank provision

9.2.1 Evidence from this survey needs to be used to consider the following:

Developing night time operation of East Street and feeders perhaps introducing a further feeder in Old Steine and introducing a 20mph speed limit along this section of Castle Street to improve safety

Identifying a practical solution to formalise a rank in the Church Street area to meet observed public demand

Ensuring traffic flows around West Street and the Ship rank continue to enhance the night rank operations particularly in any review of traffic regulation in that area

Consider improving signing from the Churchill Square area to the Queen Street rank

With completion of the revision of road networks / paving near the Station discuss with the rail, bus and highway operators a practical set-down facility for passengers

9.3 Future Review of Hackney Carriage Demand

9.3.1 In the current legal background, the next review of unmet demand and its significance should occur with surveys undertaken no later than May 2018.

9.3.2 Given the expected level of development hinted at in the area, it may be prudent to work with the trade to develop performance indicators for key ranks and time periods that would allow introduction of additional hackney carriage plates in advance of unmet demand growing to significant levels.

9.4 Disability Issues

9.4.1 The potential for trade / customer road-shows offered by various key stakeholders should be considered and taken forward. This would keep overall issues related to people’s needs and driver training regularly on the active Agenda and allow continual development of the service provided to occur.

9.4.2 It would be prudent to discuss and review the ‘telephone’ survey method and its reasonableness and practicality between all parties in a period outside the remit of the unmet demand study to allow all parties to develop an accepted and appreciated way to identify if and when the addition of five plates per year should stop. The issue of balance between saloon and WAV style vehicles (in both fleets) could be tested within the roadshow format.

9.4.3 A model should be considered looking at how the future of the two policies increasing WAV levels might pan out over the next three to five years. This would include the numbers expected to transfer with plate ownership changes as well as testing the number of plates being added.



Appendix A Formal Rank Provision Details

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage I



/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage II


Taxi Rank 24 At Any Time Notes: Rank included in 2015 survey

Item No

Street Name2015 survey reference

Side of Road

Description Spaces Approx

CPZ

1 Queens Park Terrace south from a point 24.5 metres east of the eastern kerbline of Queens Park Road

eastwards for a distance of 15.5 metres 3C

2 St James's Street north from a point 6.5 metres west of the western property boundary of no. 12 St

James's Street, eastwards for a distance of 12 metres 2C

Taxi Rank 24 At Any Time Item No


Side of Road


CPZ

3 Marine Parade SouthFrom a point 6 metres East of the junction with Royal Crescent Mews eastwards for a distance of 16 metres 3 H

4 Paston PlaceH

West From a point 6.6 metres south of the junction with Eastern Road southwards for a distance of 32.5 metres 6 H

5 Paston Place West From a point level with the northern boundary of 9 Paston Place southwards for a distance of 10.9 metres. 2 H

6 Henley Road South From a point 15.5 metres west of the eastern boundary of property no' 2 Henley Road, westwards for a distance of 16 metres 3

H

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage III


Taxi Rank 24 hours of any day

Item No


Side of Road


CPZ

7 Shaftesbury Place North

From a point 8 metres west of the southern boundary of property No.9 Shaftesbury Place westwards for a distance of 2.5 metres (at an angle of 90 degreees to the kerb)

1J

8 Stanford Avenue East From the south-western boundary of property No. 24 Stanford Avenue south-

westwards fro a distance of 36.5 metres5 J

Taxi Rank 24 hours of any day

Item No


Side of Road


CPZ

9 Brunswick Place I East

2 metres wide. From a point 6.6 metres north of the northern kerbline of Western Road northwards for a distance of 40.2 metres 8 M

10 Church Road J North2 metres wide. Between a point 10.8 metres west of the western kerbline of Palmeira Avenue and a point 6 metres east of the eastern kerbline of Salisbury Road 9 M

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage IV


Taxi Rank At Any Time

Item No


Side of Road Description

Spaces Approx CPZ

11 Church Road North From a point 5 metres east of the eastern kerbline of Wilbury Road eastwards for a distance of 10.7 metres 2

N

12 Eaton Road South,

1.8 metres wide

From a point 10 metres east of the eastern kerbline of Selborne Road, eastwards for a distance of 15 metres 3 N

13 Goldstone Villas D

Centre 2 metres wide

From a point 55.3 metres north of the northern kerbline of Clarendon Road, northwards for a distance of 55.2 metres 10 N

14 Goldstone Villas

East, 2 metres wide

From a point 10 metres north of the northern kerbline of Blatchington Road, northwards for a distance of 35.5 metres 7 N

15 Kingsway South,

1.8 metres wide

From a point 14 metres west of the western kerbline of St Aubyns South westwards for a distance of 20.0 metres 4 N

16 Norton Road GEast 1.8 metres wide

From a point 20m north of the northern kerbline of Church Road northwards for a distance of 36.5 metres 7 N


Item No



Spaces Approx CPZ

17 The Upper Drive South From a point 5 metres south of the southern boundary of property No. 60

southwards for a distance of 23.5 metres. 4 O

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage V



Item No



Spaces Approx CPZ

18 Rutland Gardens East From a point 15 metres north of the northern kerbline of New Church Road

northwards for 20.8 metres 5 R

19 Portland Road north From a point 6.6 metres west of the the prolongation of the eastern kerbline of Hogarth Road east for a distance of 15 metres 3 R


Item No



Spaces Approx CPZ

20 Gloucester Place west From a point 1.7 metres north of the southern property boundary of no. 20

Gloucester Place, southwards for a distance of 11metres 2 Y

21 London Road northeast

From a point 2 metres southeast of the north western property boundary of no. 83 London Road, south eastwards for a distance of 10.5 metres 2 Y

22 Montpelier Crescent west From a point opposite the property boundary of nos. 27/28 Montpelier Crescent,

northwards for a distance of 33metres 6 Y

23 New England Street west From a point 1.5 metres south of the prolongation of the southern kerbline of

Ann Street southwards for a distance of 10 metres 2 Y

24 St Peter's Place F south From a point 13 metres east of the eastern kerbline of York Place, eastwards for a distance of 39 metres 8 Y

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage VI



Item No



Spaces Approx CPZ

25 East Street

A

east From a point 12.5 metres south of the southern kerbline of Castle Square, southwards for a distance 18 metres 3

Z

26 East Street East From a point 37.3 metres south of the southern kerbline of Castle Square southwards for a distance of 10.7 metres 2

Z

27 East Street centre From a point 16.5 metres south of the southern kerbline of Castle Square, southwards for a distance 13.5 metres 2

Z

28 East Street west From a point 25 metres south of the southern kerbline of North Street, southwards for a distance 36.4 metres 7

Z

29 Norfolk Road east From a point 6.7 metres north of the northern kerbline of Western Road, northwards for a distance of 14 metres 2

Z

30 Pool Valley West From a point 12.3 metres north of the northern kerbline of Grand Junction Road, northwards for a distance of 9.3 metres. 2

Z

31 Pool Valley west From a point 6 metres south of the southern kerbline of Old Steine, southwards for a distance of 11.2 metres 2

Z

32 Queen Square

C

Centre East

From a point5.2 metres south of the property boundary of nos. 9/10 & 11 Queen Square, southwards for a distance of 34 metres 6

Z

33 Queen Square Centre West

From a point 5.2 metres south of the property boundary of Nos. 9/10 & 11 Queens Square southwards for a distance of 29 metres 5

Z

34 Queen Square east From a point 16.5 metres north of the northern kerbline of North Street, northwards for a distance of 16.5 metres 3

Z

35 West Street B eastFrom a point adjacent to the property boundary of nos. 77/78 West Street, southwards to a point adjacent to the southern property boundary of no. 81 West Street

Z

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage VII


36 West Street west From a point 5.3 metres south of the prolongation opposite the property boundary of nos. 78/79 West Street, southwards for a distance of 33 metres 6

Z

37 Western Street east From a point 12.8 metres north of the northern kerbline of Kingsway northwards for a distance of 18.2 metres 3

Z

Taxi Rank & Loading Bay

Item No



Spaces Approx CPZ

38 Castle SquareUsed as

night feeder to

A

South Side

From a point 21 metres east of the eastern kerbl;ine of East Street eastwards for a distance of 30 metres. 6 Z

39 Jubilee Street East From a point 43.5 metres north of the northern kerbline of Church Street northwards for a distance of 23 metres 4

Z

40 King Place West From a point 8 metres north of the southern property boundary of Nos. 193 to 142 North Street northwards for a distnace of 11 metres

Z

41 North Street South From the eastern boundary wall of Nos.55/56 North Street eastwards to the eastern boundary wall of Nos. 51/52 North Street

Z

42 North Street South From the eastern boundary wall of No.49 North Street eastwards to the eastern boundary wall of Nos. 41/43 North Street

Z

43 Western Road North side

From a point 13.5 metres east of the eastern kerbline of its junction with Spring Street, eastwards for a distance of 15 metres. 3 Z

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage VIII


Taxi Rank At Any Time - Non- CPZ bays

Ref no Road Name

2015 survey reference

Side DescriptionSpaces Approx Order

Date

44 Carden Hill South From a point 47.5 metres east of the eastern kerbline of Carden Avenue eastward for a distance of 15.8 metres. 3 1998

45 Elm Grove K South From a point immediately opposite the west end of No 265 Elm Grove, eastwards for a distance of 24.4 metres. 5 1998

46 Hollingbury Terrace North From a point 7.6 metres east of the eastern kerbline of Ditchling Road north

eastwards for a distance of 15.25 metres. 3 1998

47 Lewes Road East From a point 3.1 metres north of the northern kerbline of the access to Brighton & Hove Bus Garage northwards for a distance of 36.6 metres 7 1998

48 Lewes Road South From a point 2 metres north of the southern property boundary of No.12 Coombe Terrace northwards for a distance of 12 metres 2 1998

49 Lewes Road West From a point 36 metres south of the southern kerbline of the Access Road to Wild Park southwards for a distance of 15 metres 2 New on

Amend No.4 2014

50 Longridge Avenue South From a point 30 metres north of the northern kerbline of Marine Drive

northwards for a distance of 14.5 metres 2/3New on Amend

No.6 2011

51

Nevill Road (Slip road between Nevill Road and Court Farm Road

East From a point 5.5 metres south of the southern kerbline of Nevill Road southwards for a distance of 12 metres 2

New on Amend

No.3 2010

52 Portland Road North From a point 27.8 metres west of the western kerbline of Ingram Crescent East westwards for a distance of 15.5 metres 3

New on Amend

No.7 2010

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage IX


53 Queensdown School Road North From a point 10 metres west of the western kerbline of Lewes Road westwards

for a distance of 11 metres 2 New on Amend No.4 2014

54 Station Road - Portslade West

From a point 109.5 metres north of the northern kerbline of Franklin Road northwards for a distance of 14.5 metres

2/3 New on Amend

No.7 2010

55 Surrenden Road East

From a point 26.5 metres south of the southern kerbline of the main access to Varndean Sixth Form College southwards for a distance of 11 metres 2 New on

Amend No.4 2014

56 Tongdean Lane WestFrom a point 27 metres north of the northern kerbline of the access road into Withdean Stadium northwards for a distance of 28 metres

5 New on Amend

No.6 2011

57 Warmdean SouthFrom a point 17.1 metres west of the western kerbline of Mackie Avenue westward for a distance of 12.7 metres. 2

1998

58 West Way North From a point 34 metres west of the western kerbline of Applesham Avenue westwards for 11 metres. 2 2006

Taxi Rank 24 hours of any day - Seafront Bays

Ref no Road Name

2015 survey reference

Side DescriptionSpaces Approx Order

Date

59 King's Road E North From a point 10 metres east of the eastern kerbline of Ship Street eastwards for a distance of 20 metres. 4 Seafront

60 King's Road North Crescent in front of Grand Hotel - From the northern kerbline of Kings Road at the eastern end, north-westwards for a distance of 10.1 metres. 2 Seafront

61 King's Road South From a point 1.4 metres opposite the west of the western propoerty edge of Thistle Hotel westwards for a distance of 11.9 metres (o/s Thistle Hotel) 2 Seafront

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage X


62 King's Road North From a point 38.6 metres east of the eastern kerbline of Queensbury Mews eastwards for a distance of 14.7 metres (o/s Metropole Hotel) 2 Seafront

63 Marine Parade South From a point 20.5 metres east of a prolongation of the western kerbline of Charles Street eastwards for a distance of 21 metres. 4 Seafront

64 Marine Parade South From a point 13.3 metres east of the junction of Royal Crescent Mews eastwards for a distance of 15.3 metres

3 Seafront

Taxi Rank 24 hours of any day - Seafront Bays Not on an Order

65 Old Steine

East

O/s Revenge - 23.30 to 03.00 hours every day on the site of existing bus stop outside number 24-25 Old Steine. The stand will be situated in Old Steine, East side 1.8 metre wide. From a point 53.5 metres north of the northern kerbline of Marine Parade northwards for 13 metres. 2 Z

66 Station Road West

From a point 109.5 metres north of the northern kerbline of Franklin Road northwards for 14.5 metres. 2/3

9.5

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XI


/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XII


Appendix B Rank Observation Hours Undertaken

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XIII



/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XIV


Sta

tion

(priv

ate)

Eas

t St

Wes

t St

Que

en S

quar

e

Hov

e S

tatio

n /

Gol

dsto

ne V

illas

Old

Shi

p H

otel

/ B

uddi

es

St P

eter

's P

lace

Nor

ton

Rd

Pas

ton

Pla

ce, H

ospi

tal

rank

Bru

nsw

ick

Pla

ce

(Nor

folk

Squ

are)

Chu

rch

Rd

/ Pal

mei

ra

Squ

are

Chu

rch

St a

t Jub

ilee

St

(info

rmal

)

Elm

Gro

ve

Hou

rs

rank in 2012 1 2 3 4 5= 5= 7 8= 8= 10 11 12 13 2012 survey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Comments unused 2012

Thursday16:0

0 0

Thursday17:0

0 0

Thursday18:0

0 0

Thursday19:0

0 0

Thursday20:0

0 1 1

Thursday21:0

0 2 1 2

Thursday22:0

0 3 1 1 1 2 1 6

Thursday23:0

0 4 2 1 2 2 3 2 7

Thursday00:0

0 3 2 1 3 3 4 3 7

Friday01:0

0 4 3 2 4 4 5 6Friday 02:0 5 4 3 5 6 5

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XV


0

Friday03:0

0 6 5 2

Friday04:0

0 7 1

Friday05:0

0 8 1

Friday06:0

0 9 1

Friday07:0

0 5 10 5 3

Friday08:0

0 6 11 6 3

Friday09:0

0 7 12 7 3

Friday10:0

0 8 13 4 8 7 1 4 1 8

Friday11:0

0 9 14 5 9 8 2 5 2 8

Friday12:0

0 10 15 6 10 9 3 6 3 8

Friday13:0

0 11 16 7 11 10 4 1 7 4 1 10

Friday14:0

0 12 17 8 12 11 5 2 8 5 2 10

Friday15:0

0 13 18 9 13 12 6 3 9 6 3 10

Friday16:0

0 14 19 10 13 7 4 10 7 4 9

Friday17:0

0 15 20 11 14 8 5 11 8 5 9

Friday18:0

0 16 21 9 6 12 9 6 7

Friday19:0

0 17 22 10 7 13 10 1 7 8

Friday20:0

0 18 23 14 11 8 14 11 2 8 9/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XVI


Friday21:0

0 19 24 12 15 12 15 12 3 9 9

Friday22:0

0 20 25 13 16 6 16 13 4 10 9

Friday23:0

0 21 26 6 14 17 7 17 14 5 9

Friday00:0

0 27 7 15 18 8 18 6 7

Saturday01:0

0 28 8 16 19 9 7 6

Saturday02:0

0 29 9 17 10 8 5

Saturday03:0

0 30 10 9 3

Saturday04:0

0 31 10 2

Saturday05:0

0 32 1

Saturday06:0

0 33 1

Saturday07:0

0 34 1

Saturday08:0

0 35 20 2

Saturday09:0

0 36 21 2

Saturday10:0

0 22 37 18 22 15 13 19 15 8

Saturday11:0

0 23 38 19 23 16 14 9 20 16 9

Saturday12:0

0 24 39 20 24 17 15 10 21 17 9

Saturday13:0

0 25 40 21 25 18 16 11 22 18 9

Saturday14:0

0 26 41 22 26 19 17 12 23 19 9Saturday 15:0 27 42 23 27 20 18 13 24 20 9

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XVII


0

Saturday16:0

0 43 24 28 21 19 14 25 21 8

Saturday17:0

0 44 25 29 20 15 26 22 7

Saturday18:0

0 45 30 21 27 11 5

Saturday19:0

0 46 31 22 28 12 5

Saturday20:0

0 47 13 2

Saturday21:0

0 48 22 14 3

Saturday22:0

0 49 23 15 3

Saturday23:0

0 50 24 16 3

Saturday00:0

0 51 25 17 3

Sunday01:0

0 52 26 18 3

Sunday02:0

0 53 27 19 3

Sunday03:0

0 54 20 2

Sunday04:0

0 55 1

Sunday05:0

0 56 1

Sunday06:0

0 57 1

Sunday07:0

0 58 1

Sunday08:0

0 59 1

Sunday09:0

0 60 23 2/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XVIII


Sunday10:0

0 61 24 2

Sunday11:0

0 62 25 2

Sunday12:0

0 28 63 26 32 28 16 26 7

Sunday13:0

0 29 64 27 33 29 17 27 7

Sunday14:0

0 30 65 28 34 30 18 28 7

Sunday15:0

0 31 66 29 35 31 19 29 7

Sunday16:0

0 0

Sunday17:0

0 0

Week day Week night

Weekend day Weekend night

Inter periods 340

Total hours at site 31

66 10 2

9 35 10 31 22 19 28 29 20 10 340

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XIX


Appendix C Rank Observation Details

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XX



/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXI


Survey Date

Hour

No of Vehicle Arrivals

Total Passenger Departures

Loaded Vehicle Departures

Average vehicle occupancy

Empty Vehicle Departures

% of vehicles leaving em

pty

Total Vehicle Departures

Average Vehicle Waiting Tim

e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a fare)

Average Passenger Waiting Tim

e in Hour


e, those waiting

only

Num

ber of people waiting 1-5 m

ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

East St Th 14 14/05/2015 22 109 134 89 1.5 5 5% 94 00:08:18 00:08:24 00:17:00East St Th 14 14/05/2015 23 154 195 143 1.4 3 2% 146 00:05:58 00:06:01 00:19:00East St Th 14 15/05/2015 0 98 167 106 1.6 2 2% 108 00:08:46 00:08:46 00:18:00East St Th 14 15/05/2015 1 97 135 84 1.6 7 8% 91 00:10:50 00:11:14 00:15:00East St Th 14 15/05/2015 2 62 94 65 1.4 3 4% 68 00:12:43 00:12:56 00:18:00East St Th 14 15/05/2015 3 71 114 67 1.7 4 6% 71 00:07:49 00:07:55 00:19:00East St Th 14 15/05/2015 4 35 51 37 1.4 7 16% 44 00:12:17 00:13:08 00:23:00East St Th 14 15/05/2015 5 21 20 17 1.2 7 29% 24 00:09:28 00:11:30 00:21:00East St Th 14 15/05/2015 647 910 608 1.5 38 6% 646

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage I


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Tim

e (for a fare)

Average Passenger Waiting

Time in Hour


Time, those w

aiting only

Num

ber of people waiting 1-5

mins

Num

ber of people waiting 6-

10 mins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or m

ore

East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 6 15 14 9 1.6 5 36% 14 00:22:24 00:31:24 00:41:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 7 22 18 12 1.5 9 43% 21 00:11:49 00:13:16 00:33:00 00:00:46 00:04:40 2 1 0 00:06:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 8 12 18 15 1.2 2 12% 17 00:12:20 00:14:12 00:42:00 00:00:10 00:01:30 2 0 0 00:02:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 9 27 16 15 1.1 8 35% 23 00:18:04 00:21:41 00:27:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 10 28 20 16 1.3 10 38% 26 00:25:36 00:33:28 00:45:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 11 27 16 15 1.1 14 48% 29 00:13:40 00:18:13 00:23:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 12 40 40 30 1.3 6 17% 36 00:11:28 00:11:50 00:20:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 13 39 47 38 1.2 4 10% 42 00:12:50 00:13:30 00:21:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 14 51 46 42 1.1 9 18% 51 00:13:15 00:14:10 00:20:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 15 58 48 37 1.3 10 21% 47 00:14:13 00:14:33 00:28:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 16 72 79 59 1.3 15 20% 74 00:09:12 00:09:43 00:24:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 17 67 65 53 1.2 9 15% 62 00:15:04 00:16:03 00:26:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 18 60 70 50 1.4 19 28% 69 00:13:07 00:15:28 00:25:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 19 79 102 74 1.4 12 14% 86 00:06:47 00:07:17 00:13:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 20 88 115 75 1.5 8 10% 83 00:07:42 00:07:56 00:14:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 21 100 142 91 1.6 7 7% 98 00:06:52 00:06:56 00:12:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 22 140 216 132 1.6 8 6% 140 00:05:12 00:05:19 00:09:00East St Fr 15 15/05/2015 23 185 315 179 1.8 2 1% 181 00:03:58 00:03:59 00:07:00East St Fr 15 16/05/2015 0 193 332 186 1.8 6 3% 192 00:03:59 00:04:02 00:08:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage II


East St Fr 15 16/05/2015 1 177 332 180 1.8 1 1% 181 00:04:39 00:04:40 00:08:00East St Fr 15 16/05/2015 2 157 242 145 1.7 4 3% 149 00:05:37 00:05:39 00:12:00East St Fr 15 16/05/2015 3 96 166 103 1.6 5 5% 108 00:08:14 00:08:20 00:14:00East St Fr 15 16/05/2015 4 98 133 89 1.5 7 7% 96 00:05:58 00:06:12 00:14:00 00:00:09 00:02:00 10 0 0 00:02:00East St Fr 15 16/05/2015 5 56 88 55 1.6 8 13% 63 00:09:42 00:10:11 00:19:00

East St Fr 15 16/05/2015 1887 2680 1700 1.6 188 10% 1888 00:00:0100:02:2

8 14 1 0

Survey Date

Hour







pty


Average Vehicle Waiting

Time


Time (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Tim

e (for a fare)


Time in Hour


Time, those w

aiting only

Num

ber of people waiting

1-5 mins

Num


6-10 mins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or m

ore

East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 6 29 39 25 1.6 5 17% 30 00:12:20 00:12:49 00:27:00 00:00:01 00:01:00 1 0 0 00:01:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 7 25 34 19 1.8 9 32% 28 00:10:19 00:10:30 00:27:00 00:01:24 00:08:00 0 6 0 00:09:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 8 28 17 14 1.2 12 46% 26 00:10:55 00:13:22 00:31:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 9 28 20 17 1.2 14 45% 31 00:11:08 00:14:16 00:32:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 10 26 11 10 1.1 11 52% 21 00:20:41 00:27:16 00:40:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 11 32 31 27 1.1 6 18% 33 00:09:26 00:10:52 00:24:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 12 51 51 37 1.4 10 21% 47 00:12:31 00:13:20 00:28:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 13 48 44 35 1.3 15 30% 50 00:11:37 00:12:41 00:21:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 14 71 73 59 1.2 12 17% 71 00:06:03 00:06:13 00:13:00 00:00:02 00:01:00 3 0 0 00:01:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 15 83 76 60 1.3 19 24% 79 00:11:54 00:13:15 00:25:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 16 87 78 63 1.2 27 30% 90 00:06:57 00:07:29 00:14:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 17 105 113 95 1.2 16 14% 111 00:04:03 00:04:01 00:10:00 00:00:13 00:01:51 14 0 0 00:03:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage III


East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 18 110 127 88 1.4 13 13% 101 00:07:30 00:07:50 00:16:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 19 98 146 83 1.8 13 14% 96 00:07:47 00:08:07 00:17:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 20 97 146 85 1.7 17 17% 102 00:08:26 00:08:52 00:12:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 21 141 250 132 1.9 13 9% 145 00:02:31 00:02:39 00:06:00 00:00:01 00:01:00 6 0 0 00:01:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 22 178 312 166 1.9 4 2% 170 00:03:41 00:03:43 00:09:00East St Sa 16 16/05/2015 23 191 277 159 1.7 31 16% 190 00:03:09 00:03:10 00:06:00East St Sa 16 17/05/2015 0 182 332 191 1.7 2 1% 193 00:01:46 00:01:46 00:05:00 00:00:19 00:03:29 31 0 0 00:05:00East St Sa 16 17/05/2015 1 199 338 193 1.8 5 3% 198 00:02:43 00:02:45 00:07:00East St Sa 16 17/05/2015 2 192 344 192 1.8 1 1% 193 00:02:38 00:02:38 00:05:00East St Sa 16 17/05/2015 3 176 268 164 1.6 3 2% 167 00:03:58 00:04:00 00:09:00East St Sa 16 17/05/2015 4 131 218 122 1.8 4 3% 126 00:04:50 00:04:54 00:11:00East St Sa 16 17/05/2015 5 53 92 56 1.6 7 11% 63 00:11:21 00:12:17 00:19:00

East St Sa 16 17/05/2015 2361 3437 2092 1.6 269 11% 2361 00:00:0300:03:0

9 55 6 0 00:09:00

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

East St Su 17 17/05/2015 6 44 62 30 2.1 10 25% 40 00:07:01 00:07:38 00:14:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage IV


East St Su 17 17/05/2015 7 28 31 19 1.6 9 32% 28 00:16:02 00:18:23 00:30:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 8 27 20 11 1.8 12 52% 23 00:18:17 00:26:30 00:38:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 9 27 19 13 1.5 16 55% 29 00:11:08 00:17:40 00:29:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 10 34 23 15 1.5 20 57% 35 00:12:08 00:15:03 00:33:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 11 35 29 21 1.4 12 36% 33 00:09:25 00:11:51 00:22:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 12 32 32 23 1.4 10 30% 33 00:14:00 00:14:52 00:22:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 13 36 54 31 1.7 7 18% 38 00:10:18 00:10:51 00:22:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 14 49 45 32 1.4 8 20% 40 00:17:41 00:18:55 00:30:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 15 53 55 37 1.5 9 20% 46 00:20:11 00:22:45 00:31:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 16 12 15 13 1.2 19 59% 32 00:05:55 00:13:00 00:13:00East St Su 17 17/05/2015 377 385 245 1.6 132 35% 377

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

West St Th 14 14/05/2015 23 53 77 37 2.1 10 21% 47 00:03:15 00:03:31 00:12:00 00:00:16 00:01:36 13 0 0 00:03:00West St Th 14 15/05/2015 0 53 80 44 1.8 6 12% 50 00:05:48 00:05:40 00:15:00 00:00:18 00:03:00 8 0 0 00:04:00West St Th 14 15/05/2015 1 54 90 45 2 6 12% 51 00:14:15 00:14:56 00:43:00 00:00:26 00:03:00 13 0 0 00:04:00West St Th 14 15/05/2015 2 18 29 17 1.7 7 29% 24 00:14:13 00:15:50 00:21:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage V


West St Th 14 15/05/2015 3 13 25 13 1.9 6 32% 19 00:11:27 00:14:51 00:23:00

West St Th 14 15/05/2015 191 301 156 1.9 35 18% 191 00:00:1700:02:2

8 34 0 0 00:04:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage VI


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

West St F 15 15/05/2015 23 76 72 37 1.9 32 46% 69 00:05:09 00:05:43 00:10:00West St F 15 16/05/2015 0 95 129 72 1.8 18 20% 90 00:04:50 00:04:49 00:10:00 00:00:02 00:01:00 5 0 0 00:01:00West St F 15 16/05/2015 1 81 120 74 1.6 12 14% 86 00:05:26 00:05:29 00:11:00West St F 15 16/05/2015 2 103 178 100 1.8 4 4% 104 00:05:30 00:05:32 00:11:00West St F 15 16/05/2015 3 87 5 84 0.1 9 10% 93 00:06:30 00:06:59 00:14:00

West St F 15 16/05/2015 442 504 367 1.4 75 17% 442 00:00:0100:01:0

0 5 0 0 00:01:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage VII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Queen Sq Th 14 15/05/2015 0 26 40 22 1.8 2 8% 24 00:05:20 00:05:35 00:19:00Queen Sq Th 14 15/05/2015 1 18 22 17 1.3 1 6% 18 00:10:46 00:11:03 00:20:00Queen Sq Th 14 15/05/2015 2 22 28 16 1.8 8 33% 24 00:10:43 00:11:30 00:28:00Queen Sq Th 14 15/05/2015 66 90 55 1.6 11 17% 66

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage VIII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 10 14 7 6 1.2 5 45% 11 00:17:04 00:20:53 00:33:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 11 26 19 16 1.2 6 27% 22 00:16:25 00:19:00 00:26:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 12 20 25 21 1.2 6 22% 27 00:17:33 00:19:32 00:28:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 13 33 31 23 1.3 1 4% 24 00:09:41 00:09:35 00:23:00 00:00:05 00:03:00 1 0 0 00:03:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 14 34 40 26 1.5 10 28% 36 00:18:38 00:20:13 00:29:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 15 40 63 37 1.7 2 5% 39 00:09:10 00:09:30 00:19:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 16 32 43 27 1.6 7 21% 34 00:16:07 00:18:24 00:24:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 17 47 64 44 1.5 9 17% 53 00:08:48 00:09:03 00:17:00 00:00:02 00:01:30 2 0 0 00:02:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 18Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 19Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 20Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 21 31 30 18 1.7 6 25% 24 00:09:46 00:11:25 00:24:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 22 25 27 17 1.6 5 23% 22 00:21:38 00:24:05 00:30:00Queen Sq F 15 15/05/2015 23 28 53 31 1.7 1 3% 32 00:11:02 00:11:11 00:17:00Queen Sq F 15 16/05/2015 0 46 74 40 1.9 5 11% 45 00:07:27 00:07:48 00:16:00Queen Sq F 15 16/05/2015 1 63 97 53 1.8 8 13% 61 00:05:51 00:06:12 00:11:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage IX


Queen Sq F 15 16/05/2015 2 53 76 40 1.9 22 35% 62 00:08:56 00:11:15 00:16:00

Queen Sq F 15 16/05/2015 492 649 399 1.6 93 19% 492 00:00:0100:02:0

0 3 0 0 00:03:00

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Queen Sq Sa 16 16/05/2015 10 19 16 12 1.3 5 29% 17 00:08:47 00:08:42 00:19:00Queen Sq Sa 16 16/05/2015 11 25 26 18 1.4 2 10% 20 00:06:40 00:06:40 00:14:00Queen Sq Sa 16 16/05/2015 12 25 37 23 1.6 3 12% 26 00:15:57 00:16:28 00:28:00Queen Sq Sa 16 16/05/2015 13 28 38 23 1.7 4 15% 27 00:11:47 00:12:24 00:24:00Queen Sq Sa 16 16/05/2015 14 33 53 32 1.7 5 14% 37 00:07:29 00:07:20 00:21:00Queen Sq Sa 16 16/05/2015 15 53 56 34 1.6 8 19% 42 00:13:35 00:15:00 00:37:00Queen Sq Sa 16 16/05/2015 16 38 66 36 1.8 11 23% 47 00:13:47 00:14:55 00:27:00Queen Sq Sa 16 16/05/2015 17 45 87 46 1.9 4 8% 50 00:10:42 00:11:01 00:22:00Queen Sq Sa 16 16/05/2015 266 379 224 1.7 42 16% 266

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage X


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Queen Sq Su 17 17/05/2015 12 21 28 17 1.6 2 11% 19 00:05:00 00:04:31 00:10:00Queen Sq Su 17 17/05/2015 13 21 34 22 1.5 0 0% 22 00:04:45 00:04:45 00:11:00Queen Sq Su 17 17/05/2015 14 36 31 16 1.9 5 24% 21 00:25:03 00:29:02 00:50:00Queen Sq Su 17 17/05/2015 15 28 28 20 1.4 24 55% 44 00:19:53 00:34:45 00:39:00Queen Sq Su 17 17/05/2015 106 121 75 1.6 31 29% 106

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XI


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Hove Stn Th 14 14/05/2015 21 11 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:08:27 00:09:52 00:12:00Hove Stn Th 14 14/05/2015 22 22 29 24 1.2 4 14% 28 00:09:19 00:09:37 00:21:00Hove Stn Th 14 14/05/2015 23 21 17 16 1.1 5 24% 21 00:10:22 00:11:33 00:28:00Hove Stn Th 14 15/05/2015 0 22 20 19 1.1 4 17% 23 00:04:49 00:04:28 00:15:00 00:00:12 00:02:00 2 0 0 00:02:00Hove Stn Th 14 15/05/2015 1 7 4 3 1.3 5 63% 8 00:01:42 00:01:20 00:04:00

Hove Stn Th 14 15/05/2015 83 71 63 1.1 20 24% 83 00:00:0300:02:0

0 2 0 0

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 7 7 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:18:17 00:22:40 00:37:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 8 20 8 7 1.1 13 65% 20 00:08:48 00:11:53 00:19:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 9 15 15 13 1.2 5 28% 18 00:11:40 00:10:26 00:23:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 10 19 10 7 1.4 9 56% 16 00:15:34 00:16:54 00:51:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 11 13 6 5 1.2 7 58% 12 00:17:13 00:25:00 00:29:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 12 12 8 6 1.3 5 45% 11 00:20:50 00:23:06 00:34:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 13 14 11 11 1 5 31% 16 00:11:04 00:13:13 00:19:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 14 11 7 5 1.4 4 44% 9 00:20:21 00:20:15 00:49:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 15 10 10 8 1.3 6 43% 14 00:06:48 00:08:00 00:16:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 16 2 3 2 1.5 2 50% 4 00:05:30Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 17Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 18Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 19Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 20 17 14 9 1.6 3 25% 12 00:15:00 00:15:50 00:29:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 21 20 16 9 1.8 9 50% 18 00:21:21 00:27:43 00:42:00Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 22 25 28 21 1.3 10 32% 31 00:09:26 00:10:18 00:21:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XIII


Hove Stn F 15 15/05/2015 23 44 49 36 1.4 9 20% 45 00:03:51 00:03:51 00:09:00 00:00:04 00:02:00 2 0 0 00:02:00Hove Stn F 15 16/05/2015 0 21 16 14 1.1 7 33% 21 00:07:25 00:09:12 00:16:00Hove Stn F 15 16/05/2015 1 9 8 6 1.3 3 33% 9 00:01:53 00:01:50 00:03:00 00:00:45 00:03:00 2 0 0 00:03:00

Hove Stn F 15 16/05/2015 259 210 160 1.3 99 38% 259 00:00:0300:02:3

0 4 0 0

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 8 11 2 2 1 7 78% 9 00:12:54 00:11:40 00:28:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 9 9 3 3 1 4 57% 7 00:21:40 00:24:12 00:42:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 10 5 7 6 1.2 3 33% 9 00:08:36 00:10:40 00:20:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 11 15 15 9 1.7 3 25% 12 00:08:36 00:08:54 00:19:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 12 11 17 9 1.9 4 31% 13 00:05:10 00:04:46 00:11:00 00:00:42 00:04:00 3 0 0 00:05:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 13 14 11 7 1.6 4 36% 11 00:12:04 00:08:00 00:50:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 14 13 7 6 1.2 6 50% 12 00:15:00 00:15:22 00:26:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 15 14 20 11 1.8 7 39% 18 00:09:12 00:10:53 00:22:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 16 21 22 10 2.2 9 47% 19 00:08:37 00:11:00 00:20:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 17 15 18 10 1.8 5 33% 15 00:14:56 00:15:40 00:21:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XIV


Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 18 24 28 17 1.6 8 32% 25 00:08:37 00:09:26 00:20:00Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 19 42 74 34 2.2 10 23% 44 00:01:48 00:02:05 00:05:00 00:00:12 00:01:21 11 0 0 00:03:00

Hove Stn Sa 16 16/05/2015 194 224 124 1.8 70 36% 194 00:00:0700:01:5

5 14 0 0 00:05:00

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Hove Stn Su 17 17/05/2015 12 11 8 5 1.6 5 50% 10 00:12:16 00:14:30 00:20:00Hove Stn Su 17 17/05/2015 13 15 23 13 1.8 3 19% 16 00:05:52 00:05:10 00:14:00Hove Stn Su 17 17/05/2015 14 14 12 7 1.7 6 46% 13 00:07:38 00:08:22 00:20:00Hove Stn Su 17 17/05/2015 15 14 10 8 1.3 7 47% 15 00:08:55 00:10:17 00:22:00Hove Stn Su 17 17/05/2015 54 53 33 1.6 21 39% 54

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XV


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Old Ship Th 14 14/05/2015 22 15 16 9 1.8 4 31% 13 00:02:32 00:01:54 00:06:00 00:00:11 00:01:00 3 0 0 00:01:00Old Ship Th 14 14/05/2015 23 13 16 11 1.5 3 21% 14 00:02:46 00:02:18 00:09:00 00:00:07 00:01:00 2 0 0 00:01:00Old Ship Th 14 15/05/2015 0 5 1 1 1 5 83% 6 00:02:00 00:07:00 00:07:00Old Ship Th 14 15/05/2015 1 4 3 1 3 3 75% 4 00:03:45 00:05:00 00:05:00Old Ship Th 14 15/05/2015 2 1 2 1 2 0 0% 1 00:07:00 00:07:00 00:07:00

Old Ship Th 14 15/05/2015 38 38 23 1.7 15 39% 38 00:00:0800:01:0

0 5 0 0 00:01:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XVI


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Old Ship F 15 15/05/2015 22 20 29 15 1.9 4 21% 19 00:02:15 00:02:22 00:06:00Old Ship F 15 15/05/2015 23 19 36 19 1.9 1 5% 20 00:02:50 00:02:50 00:08:00Old Ship F 15 16/05/2015 0 17 21 12 1.8 5 29% 17 00:02:35 00:02:45 00:05:00 00:00:22 00:04:00 2 0 0 00:04:00Old Ship F 15 16/05/2015 1 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:03:00 00:05:00 00:05:00Old Ship F 15 16/05/2015 2 5 8 3 2.7 2 40% 5 00:01:24 00:01:20 00:03:00 00:00:30 00:02:00 2 0 0 00:02:00

Old Ship F 15 16/05/2015 63 95 50 1.9 13 21% 63 00:00:0800:03:0

0 4 0 0

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XVII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

St Peters Pl Th 14 14/05/2015 21 19 16 11 1.5 1 8% 12 00:17:31 00:18:26 00:27:00St Peters Pl Th 14 14/05/2015 22 27 38 27 1.4 4 13% 31 00:08:42 00:09:41 00:12:00St Peters Pl Th 14 14/05/2015 23 41 54 35 1.5 6 15% 41 00:06:52 00:07:22 00:15:00St Peters Pl Th 14 15/05/2015 0 44 60 41 1.5 2 5% 43 00:05:39 00:05:48 00:23:00St Peters Pl Th 14 15/05/2015 1 13 12 9 1.3 5 36% 14 00:19:13 00:22:51 00:28:00St Peters Pl Th 14 15/05/2015 2 9 4 4 1 8 67% 12 00:08:53 00:15:00 00:17:00

St Peters Pl Th 14 15/05/2015 153 184 127 1.4 26 17% 153

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XVIII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

St Peters Pl F 15 15/05/2015 10 26 27 18 1.5 6 25% 24 00:10:13 00:09:54 00:24:00St Peters Pl F 15 15/05/2015 11 16 8 7 1.1 6 46% 13 00:21:30 00:23:06 00:26:00St Peters Pl F 15 15/05/2015 12 23 22 18 1.2 4 18% 22 00:09:28 00:10:06 00:20:00St Peters Pl F 15 15/05/2015 13 19 23 16 1.4 8 33% 24 00:11:06 00:12:20 00:19:00St Peters Pl F 15 15/05/2015 14 31 34 25 1.4 6 19% 31 00:03:38 00:03:21 00:11:00 00:00:28 00:01:46 9 0 0 00:03:00St Peters Pl F 15 15/05/2015 15 22 17 14 1.2 5 26% 19 00:10:02 00:10:10 00:17:00St Peters Pl F 15 15/05/2015 16 19 28 17 1.6 4 19% 21 00:09:25 00:08:34 00:14:00St Peters Pl F 15 15/05/2015 17 27 42 22 1.9 7 24% 29 00:04:02 00:04:11 00:09:00 00:00:02 00:01:00 2 0 0 00:01:00

St Peters Pl F 15 15/05/2015 183 201 137 1.5 46 25% 183 00:00:0500:01:3

8 11 0 0 00:03:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XIX


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 10 15 9 5 1.8 6 55% 11 00:11:32 00:12:13 00:26:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 11 23 30 21 1.4 4 16% 25 00:05:33 00:06:06 00:11:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 12 19 25 15 1.7 6 29% 21 00:03:15 00:03:08 00:08:00 00:01:21 00:04:51 6 1 0 00:08:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 13 21 27 15 1.8 4 21% 19 00:03:00 00:03:10 00:09:00 00:00:37 00:03:24 5 0 0 00:05:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 14 22 33 19 1.7 3 14% 22 00:06:49 00:07:09 00:19:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 15 31 36 21 1.7 8 28% 29 00:08:34 00:08:49 00:31:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 16 32 53 27 2 9 25% 36 00:05:43 00:06:42 00:17:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 17St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 18St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 19St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 20St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 21 43 67 33 2 3 8% 36 00:08:34 00:09:01 00:17:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 22 55 110 55 2 4 7% 59 00:04:05 00:04:12 00:10:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 23 69 151 65 2.3 2 3% 67 00:02:42 00:02:42 00:07:00 00:00:09 00:02:30 10 0 0 00:03:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 17/05/2015 0 78 160 81 2 2 2% 83 00:01:04 00:01:04 00:06:00 00:00:37 00:01:41 60 0 0 00:03:00St Peters Pl Sa 16 17/05/2015 1 64 108 57 1.9 4 7% 61 00:02:13 00:02:19 00:06:00 00:00:07 00:01:26 9 0 0 00:02:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XX


St Peters Pl Sa 16 17/05/2015 2 50 94 46 2 7 13% 53 00:02:49 00:03:00 00:10:00 00:00:01 00:01:00 2 0 0 00:01:00St Peters Pl Sa

16 17/05/2015 522 903 460 2 62 12% 522 00:00:1300:02:0

4 92 1 0 00:08:00

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

St Peters Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 12 12 12 8 1.5 2 20% 10 00:05:00 00:04:48 00:11:00 00:00:20 00:04:00 1 0 0 00:04:00St Peters Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 13 11 12 8 1.5 4 33% 12 00:08:16 00:10:00 00:17:00St Peters Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 14 14 17 8 2.1 3 27% 11 00:13:34 00:15:06 00:30:00St Peters Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 15 18 15 11 1.4 11 50% 22 00:10:13 00:12:06 00:26:00

St Peters Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 55 56 35 1.6 20 36% 55 00:00:04

00:04:00 1 0 0 00:04:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXI


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 10 15 6 6 1 9 60% 15 00:07:36 00:08:30 00:14:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 11 9 5 4 1.3 4 50% 8 00:17:33 00:14:15 00:28:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 12 19 11 9 1.2 8 47% 17 00:04:09 00:02:48 00:06:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 13 18 12 9 1.3 5 36% 14 00:13:33 00:13:27 00:31:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 14 14 15 10 1.5 9 47% 19 00:08:04 00:09:37 00:16:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 15 22 14 10 1.4 10 50% 20 00:07:16 00:08:21 00:21:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 16 15 8 8 1 10 56% 18 00:16:48 00:20:08 00:41:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 17 14 15 12 1.3 2 14% 14 00:04:00 00:04:05 00:12:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 18 25 18 12 1.5 12 50% 24 00:04:43 00:04:45 00:14:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 19 30 14 9 1.6 20 69% 29 00:06:46 00:08:48 00:12:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 20 24 21 13 1.6 9 41% 22 00:12:12 00:13:17 00:28:00 00:00:05 00:02:00 1 0 0 00:02:00Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 21 18 27 15 1.8 8 35% 23 00:12:43 00:14:25 00:27:00

Norton Rd F 15 15/05/2015 223 166 117 1.4 106 48% 223 00:00:0100:02:0

0 1 0 0 00:02:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 10 13 7 5 1.4 8 62% 13 00:09:55 00:08:48 00:21:00Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 11 13 4 4 1 7 64% 11 00:05:32 00:06:48 00:13:00Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 12 11 6 4 1.5 8 67% 12 00:06:27 00:05:20 00:14:00 00:00:20 00:02:00 1 0 0 00:02:00Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 13 16 15 8 1.9 7 47% 15 00:05:41 00:05:46 00:13:00Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 14 20 19 13 1.5 5 28% 18 00:08:27 00:08:28 00:17:00Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 15 14 15 10 1.5 6 38% 16 00:12:47 00:11:17 00:24:00Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 16 12 4 3 1.3 7 70% 10 00:17:00 00:16:24 00:28:00Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 17 14 14 8 1.8 8 50% 16 00:07:25 00:08:34 00:11:00Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 18 26 29 17 1.7 9 35% 26 00:03:41 00:03:56 00:10:00Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 19 30 20 14 1.4 18 56% 32 00:04:04 00:03:41 00:08:00

Norton Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 169 133 86 1.5 83 49% 169 00:00:0100:02:0

0 1 0 0 00:02:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXIII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Paston Pl Fr 15 15/05/2015 13 24 12 10 1.2 7 41% 17 00:21:35 00:23:33 00:35:00Paston Pl Fr 15 15/05/2015 14 22 18 14 1.3 11 44% 25 00:16:51 00:17:54 00:25:00Paston Pl Fr 15 15/05/2015 15 24 20 14 1.4 9 39% 23 00:15:12 00:15:08 00:32:00Paston Pl Fr 15 15/05/2015 16 30 26 23 1.1 11 32% 34 00:06:22 00:06:30 00:13:00 00:00:04 00:02:00 1 0 0 00:02:00Paston Pl Fr 15 15/05/2015 17 31 37 27 1.4 4 13% 31 00:02:40 00:02:38 00:12:00 00:01:12 00:05:37 4 4 0 00:09:00Paston Pl Fr 15 15/05/2015 18 29 15 11 1.4 14 56% 25 00:10:20 00:07:05 00:16:00 00:00:04 00:01:00 1 0 0 00:01:00Paston Pl Fr 15 15/05/2015 19 29 18 16 1.1 16 50% 32 00:09:14 00:08:52 00:16:00Paston Pl Fr 15 15/05/2015 20 39 26 20 1.3 21 51% 41 00:05:44 00:06:16 00:10:00

Paston Pl Fr 15 15/05/2015 228 172 135 1.3 93 41% 228 00:00:1700:04:4

8 6 4 0 00:09:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXIV


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Paston Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 11 18 17 9 1.9 8 47% 17 00:09:06 00:10:00 00:17:00Paston Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 12 14 11 8 1.4 7 47% 15 00:11:12 00:07:08 00:18:00Paston Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 13 16 6 6 1 6 50% 12 00:08:18 00:08:15 00:17:00Paston Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 14 19 10 6 1.7 11 65% 17 00:14:31 00:15:26 00:20:00Paston Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 15 21 15 11 1.4 10 48% 21 00:09:28 00:06:51 00:12:00Paston Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 16 14 10 8 1.3 8 50% 16 00:14:34 00:14:00 00:21:00Paston Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 17 11 9 7 1.3 8 53% 15 00:06:38 00:06:45 00:12:00Paston Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 113 78 55 1.4 58 51% 113

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXV


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Paston Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 12 15 6 5 1.2 9 64% 14 00:05:08 00:04:10 00:12:00 00:00:20 00:02:00 1 0 0 00:02:00Paston Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 13 10 9 5 1.8 5 50% 10 00:06:48 00:03:12 00:08:00 00:02:00 00:06:00 0 3 0 00:06:00Paston Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 14 15 9 7 1.3 8 53% 15 00:09:52 00:09:17 00:18:00Paston Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 15 14 7 5 1.4 10 67% 15 00:15:30 00:15:15 00:18:00

Paston Pl Su 17 17/05/2015 54 31 22 1.4 32 59% 54 00:00:3900:05:0

0 1 3 0 00:06:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXVI


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Brunswick Pl Th 14 14/05/2015 22 7 2 2 1 5 71% 7 00:07:51 00:12:30 00:14:00

Brunswick Pl Th 14 14/05/2015 23 3 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:00:40 00:00:00 00:00:00

Brunswick Pl Th 14 15/05/2015 0 2 2 1 2 1 50% 2 00:02:30 00:01:00 00:01:00

Brunswick Pl Th 14 15/05/2015 12 5 4 1.3 8 67% 12

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXVII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 10 20 5 4 1.3 10 71% 14 00:12:30 00:16:30 00:20:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 11 20 9 7 1.3 15 68% 22 00:11:09 00:14:52 00:27:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 12 16 11 8 1.4 10 56% 18 00:10:45 00:11:00 00:16:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 13 14 9 8 1.1 5 38% 13 00:15:12 00:13:30 00:28:00 00:00:20 00:01:30 2 0 0 00:02:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 14 14 10 6 1.7 10 63% 16 00:10:55 00:14:00 00:30:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 15 5 6 4 1.5 2 33% 6 00:05:00 00:07:00 00:12:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 16 19 9 5 1.8 14 74% 19 00:08:03 00:08:00 00:12:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 17 15 10 7 1.4 7 50% 14 00:04:56 00:03:30 00:09:00 00:00:06 00:01:00 1 0 0 00:01:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 18 23 17 13 1.3 11 46% 24 00:06:15 00:06:05 00:10:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 19 29 28 16 1.8 11 41% 27 00:04:39 00:04:30 00:17:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 20 32 17 12 1.4 20 63% 32 00:05:26 00:06:32 00:12:00 00:00:03 00:01:00 1 0 0 00:01:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 21 18 10 6 1.7 13 68% 19 00:05:50 00:07:30 00:15:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 22 13 4 2 2 10 83% 12 00:08:41 00:13:00 00:18:00Brunswick Pl F 15 15/05/2015 23 8 2 2 1 8 80% 10 00:07:45 00:01:00 00:01:00Brunswick Pl F 15 16/05/2015 0 1 0 0 1 1 100% 1 00:02:00

Brunswick Pl F 16/05/2015 247 147 100 1.5 147 60% 247 00:00:02 00:01:1 4 0 0 00:02:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXVIII


15 5

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 10 22 14 10 1.4 11 52% 21 00:05:51 00:05:54 00:17:00

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 11 22 21 13 1.6 9 41% 22 00:04:43 00:05:55 00:15:00

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 12 12 4 3 1.3 10 77% 13 00:05:40 00:05:20 00:09:00 00:03:00 00:09:00 0 2 0 00:09:00

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 13 16 16 8 2 7 47% 15 00:06:03 00:06:53 00:16:00

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 14 13 12 5 2.4 9 64% 14 00:15:23 00:15:30 00:22:00

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 15 21 20 11 1.8 7 39% 18 00:04:57 00:05:05 00:11:00

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 16 16 14 7 2 11 61% 18 00:05:56 00:04:34 00:06:00

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 17 8 7 5 1.4 4 44% 9 00:04:00 00:04:45 00:10:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXIX


Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 18 16 14 6 2.3 10 63% 16 00:04:41 00:06:10 00:26:00

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 19 23 24 12 2 11 48% 23 00:03:33 00:02:40 00:08:00 00:00:27 00:02:45 4 0 0 00:03:00

Brunswick Pl Sa 16 16/05/2015 169 146 80 1.8 89 53% 169 00:00:12

00:04:50 4 2 0 00:09:00

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 10 6 1 1 1 3 75% 4 00:12:20 00:12:00 00:20:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 11 8 4 2 2 8 80% 10 00:07:52 00:04:00 00:04:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 12 13 6 6 1 5 45% 11 00:07:13 00:04:51 00:11:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 13 8 9 4 2.3 4 50% 8 00:14:45 00:13:45 00:23:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 14 8 3 3 1 6 67% 9 00:08:07 00:01:40 00:03:00 00:01:00 00:03:00 1 0 0 00:03:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 15 6 6 5 1.2 1 17% 6 00:02:30 00:02:24 00:05:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 16 8 7 6 1.2 3 33% 9 00:04:15 00:03:24 00:10:00 00:00:17 00:02:00 1 0 0 00:02:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 17 8 8 5 1.6 3 38% 8 00:02:37 00:00:36 00:02:00 00:01:15 00:02:00 5 0 0 00:02:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 18 11 8 6 1.3 5 45% 11 00:01:10 00:00:30 00:01:00 00:00:30 00:02:00 2 0 0 00:02:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 19 14 4 3 1.3 10 77% 13 00:03:51 00:04:40 00:07:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXX


Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 20 9 2 2 1 8 80% 10 00:08:33 00:07:00 00:12:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 21 8 5 3 1.7 4 57% 7 00:05:15 00:06:30 00:12:00 00:00:48 00:02:00 2 0 0 00:02:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 22 9 5 3 1.7 7 70% 10 00:06:13 00:08:30 00:11:00Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 23 3 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:08:20 00:08:00 00:08:00

Church Rd F 15 15/05/2015 119 69 50 1.4 69 58% 119 00:00:2000:02:0

5 11 0 0 00:03:00

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Church Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 10 8 7 3 2.3 5 63% 8 00:03:07 00:03:00 00:07:00Church Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 11 5 8 4 2 1 20% 5 00:06:24 00:05:00 00:08:00 00:00:30 00:02:00 2 0 0 00:02:00Church Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 12 8 6 5 1.2 3 38% 8 00:03:37 00:03:00 00:08:00Church Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 13 5 5 3 1.7 0 0% 3 00:15:12 00:10:15 00:23:00 00:00:48 00:02:00 2 0 0 00:02:00Church Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 14 9 7 4 1.8 6 60% 10 00:11:46 00:13:00 00:17:00Church Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 15 4 7 5 1.4 0 0% 5 00:06:45 00:06:45 00:11:00Church Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 16 10 7 5 1.4 4 44% 9 00:05:00 00:05:00 00:10:00Church Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 17 7 6 3 2 5 63% 8 00:04:00 00:04:40 00:07:00Church Rd Sa 16 16/05/2015 56 53 32 1.7 24 43% 56 00:00:09 00:02:0 4 0 0 00:02:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXXI


0

Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Church Rd Su 17 17/05/2015 9 6 4 2 2 3 60% 5 00:10:20 00:13:40 00:19:00Church Rd Su 17 17/05/2015 10 8 5 3 1.7 4 57% 7 00:07:52 00:06:40 00:19:00 00:00:12 00:01:00 1 0 0 00:01:00Church Rd Su 17 17/05/2015 11 5 4 2 2 3 60% 5 00:17:36 00:16:30 00:29:00Church Rd Su 17 17/05/2015 12 3 3 2 1.5 2 50% 4 00:12:40 00:17:00 00:25:00Church Rd Su 17 17/05/2015 13 6 5 2 2.5 4 67% 6 00:14:20 00:28:00 00:28:00Church Rd Su 17 17/05/2015 14 5 3 2 1.5 2 50% 4 00:12:24 00:11:20 00:24:00Church Rd Su 17 17/05/2015 15 4 6 3 2 3 50% 6 00:04:45 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:40 00:01:00 4 0 0 00:01:00

Church Rd Su 17 17/05/2015 37 30 16 1.9 21 57% 37 00:00:1000:01:0

0 5 0 0 00:01:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXXII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Church St F 15 15/05/2015 18 6 2 2 1 1 33% 3 00:06:10 00:07:00 00:09:00Church St F 15 15/05/2015 19 33 36 23 1.6 10 30% 33 00:03:20 00:03:21 00:12:00Church St F 15 15/05/2015 20 32 40 24 1.7 8 25% 32 00:04:46 00:04:45 00:10:00Church St F 15 15/05/2015 21 36 43 26 1.7 7 21% 33 00:07:10 00:07:55 00:18:00Church St F 15 15/05/2015 22 50 94 54 1.7 2 4% 56 00:03:08 00:03:12 00:07:00Church St F 15 15/05/2015 23 43 58 37 1.6 2 5% 39 00:05:23 00:05:26 00:13:00Church St F 15 16/05/2015 0 59 104 58 1.8 3 5% 61 00:02:11 00:02:10 00:06:00 00:00:02 00:01:00 4 0 0 00:01:00Church St F 15 16/05/2015 1 65 116 57 2 4 7% 61 00:01:45 00:01:45 00:05:00 00:00:00 00:01:00 1 0 0 00:01:00Church St F 15 16/05/2015 2 33 68 37 1.8 2 5% 39 00:02:27 00:02:28 00:06:00Church St F 15 16/05/2015 3 17 28 16 1.8 1 6% 17 00:01:56 00:01:56 00:05:00 00:00:02 00:01:00 1 0 0 00:01:00

Church St F 15 16/05/2015 374 589 334 1.8 40 11% 374 00:00:0100:01:0

0 6 0 0 00:01:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXXIII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Church St Sa 16 16/05/2015 18 14 10 5 2 8 62% 13 00:02:00 00:03:20 00:07:00Church St Sa 16 16/05/2015 19 20 18 14 1.3 6 30% 20 00:03:51 00:04:42 00:12:00Church St Sa 16 16/05/2015 20 28 32 19 1.7 8 30% 27 00:04:36 00:04:48 00:18:00Church St Sa 16 16/05/2015 21 45 61 36 1.7 10 22% 46 00:04:40 00:04:58 00:16:00Church St Sa 16 16/05/2015 22 48 71 42 1.7 7 14% 49 00:02:47 00:02:39 00:08:00 00:00:08 00:01:40 6 0 0 00:02:00Church St Sa 16 16/05/2015 23 32 45 27 1.7 3 10% 30 00:00:50 00:00:55 00:05:00Church St Sa 16 17/05/2015 0 57 98 57 1.7 1 2% 58 00:01:15 00:01:16 00:04:00Church St Sa 16 17/05/2015 1 43 78 39 2 2 5% 41 00:01:15 00:01:17 00:05:00Church St Sa 16 17/05/2015 2 31 53 29 1.8 4 12% 33 00:01:54 00:01:36 00:06:00Church St Sa 16 17/05/2015 3 5 11 4 2.8 2 33% 6 00:01:12 00:01:15 00:03:00

Church St Sa 16 17/05/2015 323 477 272 1.8 51 16% 323 00:00:0100:01:4

0 6 0 0 00:02:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXXIV


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 12 1 0 0 0 0 0% 0 00:10:00 00:00:00 00:00:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 13 3 0 0 0 3 100% 3 00:16:20 00:00:00 00:00:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 14 4 0 0 0 4 100% 4 00:19:15 00:00:00 00:00:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 15 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:11:00 00:13:00 00:13:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 16 2 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:05:30 00:08:00 00:08:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 17 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 18 1 0 0 0 1 100% 1 00:17:00 0 0Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 19 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 20 4 0 0 0 3 100% 3 00:05:30 00:00:00 00:00:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 21 0 0 0 0 1 100% 1 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 22 1 0 0 0 1 100% 1 00:32:00 00:00:00 00:00:00Elm Grove F 15 15/05/2015 18 2 2 1 16 89% 18

Overall Totals: 105811358

9 8438 1.6 2143 20%1058

1 293 17 0

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXXV


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Station Th 14 14/05/2015 20 169 191 151 1.3 0 0% 151 00:04:38 00:04:38 00:12:00Station Th 14 14/05/2015 21 147 202 153 1.3 0 0% 153 00:04:49 00:04:49 00:12:00Station Th 14 14/05/2015 22 182 229 178 1.3 0 0% 178 00:03:31 00:03:31 00:24:00Station Th 14 14/05/2015 23 166 223 163 1.4 19 10% 182 00:03:01 00:02:59 00:18:00Station Th 14 14/05/2015 664 845 645 1.3 19 3% 664

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXXVI


Survey Date

Hour







pty



Time


Time (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Tim

e (for a fare)


Time in Hour


Time, those w

aiting only

Num


1-5 mins

Num


6-10 mins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or m

ore

Station F 15 15/05/2015 7 24 14 13 1.1 1 7% 14 00:23:42 00:24:15 00:38:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 8 47 55 51 1.1 0 0% 51 00:04:51 00:04:48 00:20:00 00:01:51 00:05:40 7 11 0 00:09:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 9 94 130 92 1.4 2 2% 94 00:05:22 00:05:23 00:16:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 10 64 78 50 1.6 2 4% 52 00:17:34 00:17:57 00:27:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 11 86 130 83 1.6 1 1% 84 00:07:32 00:07:34 00:22:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 12 88 162 99 1.6 3 3% 102 00:06:21 00:06:19 00:17:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 13 98 161 102 1.6 0 0% 102 00:03:06 00:03:06 00:10:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 14 121 182 123 1.5 0 0% 123 00:04:39 00:04:39 00:16:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 15 131 199 124 1.6 1 1% 125 00:03:37 00:03:35 00:12:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 16 136 198 129 1.5 0 0% 129 00:05:09 00:05:09 00:11:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 17 161 238 154 1.5 0 0% 154 00:05:26 00:05:26 00:09:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 18 161 253 163 1.6 0 0% 163 00:06:47 00:06:47 00:13:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 19 215 309 215 1.4 1 0% 216 00:04:21 00:04:22 00:06:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 20 193 295 194 1.5 0 0% 194 00:04:47 00:04:47 00:07:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 21 154 244 158 1.5 0 0% 158 00:05:47 00:05:47 00:15:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 22 128 174 123 1.4 0 0% 123 00:06:31 00:06:31 00:13:00Station F 15 15/05/2015 23 164 242 164 1.5 17 9% 181 00:02:15 00:02:25 00:06:00

Station F 15 15/05/2015 2065 3064 2037 1.5 28 1% 2065 00:00:0200:05:4

0 7 11 0 00:09:00

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXXVII


/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXXVIII


Survey Date

Hour







pty



Time


Time (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Tim

e (for a fare)


Time in Hour


Time, those w

aiting only

Num


5 mins

Num


10 mins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or m

ore

Station Sa 16 16/05/2015 10 76 124 72 1.7 1 1% 73 00:05:59 00:06:00 00:21:00Station Sa 16 16/05/2015 11 91 135 81 1.7 2 2% 83 00:07:50 00:07:55 00:16:00Station Sa 16 16/05/2015 12 97 175 106 1.7 0 0% 106 00:02:15 00:02:15 00:07:00Station Sa 16 16/05/2015 13 100 158 96 1.6 1 1% 97 00:02:01 00:02:00 00:08:00Station Sa 16 16/05/2015 14 94 141 90 1.6 3 3% 93 00:05:55 00:06:00 00:13:00Station Sa 16 16/05/2015 15 77 105 65 1.6 18 22% 83 00:10:55 00:12:52 00:19:00Station Sa 16 16/05/2015 535 838 510 1.6 25 5% 535

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XXXIX


Survey Date

Hour







pty



e


e (for a fare)

Maxim

um Vehicle W

aiting Time (for a

fare)


e in Hour


e, those w

aiting only

Num


ins

Num


ins

Num

ber waiting 11 m

ins or more

Station Su 17 17/05/2015 12 72 108 63 1.7 0 0% 63 00:08:06 00:08:06 00:16:00Station Su 17 17/05/2015 13 84 137 79 1.7 3 4% 82 00:07:30 00:07:27 00:17:00Station Su 17 17/05/2015 14 98 164 89 1.8 0 0% 89 00:08:35 00:08:35 00:16:00Station Su 17 17/05/2015 15 85 157 90 1.7 15 14% 105 00:10:07 00:11:20 00:20:00Station Su 17 17/05/2015 339 566 321 1.8 18 5% 339

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XL


Overall totals including Station 14184

18902 11951 1.6 2233 16%

14184

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XLI


Appendix D On Street Public Attitude Results

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XLII


/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XLIII



/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XLIV


Q1: Have you used a taxi in the last 3 mths in this area? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Yes 24 47.06% 77 30.68% 62 39.74% 7 13.73% 170 33.40% No 27 52.94% 174 69.32% 94 60.26% 44 86.27% 339 66.60%

Total 51 100.00% 251 100.00% 156 100.00% 51100.00

% 509 100.00%

Q2: How often do you use a taxi within this area? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Almost daily 3 12.50% 11 16.18% 9 15.00% 0 0.00% 23 14.38% Once a week 10 41.67% 16 23.53% 9 15.00% 2 25.00% 37 23.13% A few times a month 5 20.83% 23 33.82% 22 36.67% 4 50.00% 54 33.75% Once a month 0 0.00% 15 22.06% 10 16.67% 0 0.00% 25 15.63% Less than once a month 6 25.00% 3 4.41% 10 16.67% 2 25.00% 21 13.13%

Total 24100.00

% 68 100.00% 60 100.00% 8100.00

% 160 100.00% Almost daily 20 Once a week 4 A few times a month 2 Once a month 1 Less than once a month 0.5 Resulting estimate of trips per person per month 2.2 1.4 1.8 0.3 1.5

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XLV


Q3: How do you normally get a taxi within this area? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL At a Taxi rank 7 26.92% 32 34.78% 32 38.55% 4 40.00% 75 35.55% Hail in the street 4 15.38% 22 23.91% 12 14.46% 2 20.00% 40 18.96% Telephone a company 8 30.77% 30 32.61% 19 22.89% 3 30.00% 60 28.44% Use a Freephone 4 15.38% 7 7.61% 4 4.82% 0 0.00% 15 7.11% Use my mobile or smart phone 3 11.54% 1 1.09% 16 19.28% 1 10.00% 21 9.95% Other – ONLINE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Total 26 100.0% 92 100.0% 83 100.0% 10100.00

% 211 100.0%

Q4: If you book a taxi by phone, which 3 companies do you call most often? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Airport Cab 1 9.09% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.89% Brighton Cars 2 18.18% 0 0.00% 7 31.82% 0 0.00% 9 16.98% local cab 2 18.18% 2 11.76% 4 18.18% 0 0.00% 8 15.09% Hackney Carriage 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 0 0.00% 2 3.77% Private Hire 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 0 0.00% 1 1.89% Radio Cabs 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 1.89% South Cars 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 0 0.00% 1 1.89% South Close 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.89% South Taxis 1 9.09% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.89% Station Taxis 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 0 0.00% 1 1.89% Streamline Taxis 1 9.09% 1 5.88% 4 18.18% 2 66.67% 8 15.09% Taxi Link 1 9.09% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 0 0.00% 2 3.77% 202020 Streamline 0 0.00% 6 35.29% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 11.32% 204060 Brighton and Hove Radio Cabs 1 9.09% 4 23.53% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 9.43% 205205 City Cabs 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 1 4.55% 0 0.00% 2 3.77%

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XLVI


3011 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.89% 747474 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.89% 505205 2 18.18% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 3.77%

Total 11 100.00% 17 100.00% 22 100.00% 3100.00

% 53 100.00%

Q5: Should any taxi you phone have a propn WAV? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Yes 6 50.00% 16 57.14% 15 50.00% 4 66.67% 41 50.00% No 1 8.33% 8 28.57% 7 23.33% 2 33.33% 20 24.39% No Opinion 5 41.67% 4 14.29% 8 26.67% 0 0.00% 21 25.61%

Total 12 100.00% 28 100.00% 30 100.00% 6100.00

% 82 100.00%

Q6: How often do you use a hackney cariage within the area? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Almost daily 0 0.00% 12 19.67% 9 18.75% 0 0.00% 21 16.54% Once a week 7 63.64% 14 22.95% 10 20.83% 2 28.57% 33 25.98% A few times a month 1 9.09% 20 32.79% 19 39.58% 4 57.14% 44 34.65% Once a month 1 9.09% 13 21.31% 2 4.17% 0 0.00% 16 12.60% Less than once a month 2 18.18% 1 1.64% 4 8.33% 0 0.00% 7 5.51%

I can't remember when I last used a hackney carriage 0 0.00% 1 1.64% 4 8.33% 1 14.29% 6 4.72%

I can't remember seeing a hackney carriage in the area 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Total 11100.00

% 61 100.00% 48 100.00% 7100.00

% 127 100.00% Almost daily 20 Once a week 4 A few times a month 2

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XLVII


Once a month 1 Less than once a month 0.5 Resulting estimate of trips per person per month 0.6 1.4 1.7 0.3 1.3

Q7: Thinking about your last hc jny, what sort of vehicle was it? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL A saloon style 5 62.50% 30 58.82% 38 79.17% 3 50.00% 76 67.26% A wheel chair accessible style 3 37.50% 7 13.73% 5 10.42% 1 16.67% 16 14.16% Don’t know 0 0.00% 14 27.45% 5 10.42% 2 33.33% 21 18.58%

Total 8100.00

% 51 100.00% 48 100.00% 6100.00

% 113 100.00%

Q8: Which ranks are you aware of in the area? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Beach End 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 3.85% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Brighton Station 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 3.85% 1 12.50% 2 2.17% Central Station 1 7.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Churchill 0 0.00% 14 31.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 14 15.22% Churchill Square 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 3.85% 1 12.50% 2 2.17% Church Road 1 7.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Dyke Road 0 0.00% 1 2.27% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% East Street 0 0.00% 10 22.73% 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 13 14.13% George Street 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 30.77% 0 0.00% 8 8.70% High Street 2 14.29% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 2.17% Hospital 0 0.00% 1 2.27% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Hove 0 0.00% 2 4.55% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 2.17% Hove Garden 0 0.00% 1 2.27% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09%

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XLVIII


Hove Station 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 11.54% 0 0.00% 3 3.26% Hove Town Hall 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 3.85% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Kings Road 2 14.29% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 3.26% Main Street 1 7.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Marina Square 1 7.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Norfolk Square 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% North Station 1 7.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% North Street 1 7.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 2.17% Old Stien 0 0.00% 3 6.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 3.26% Palmer Square 0 0.00% 1 2.27% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Sea Front 0 0.00% 3 6.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 3.26% Station 1 7.14% 6 13.64% 8 30.77% 0 0.00% 15 16.30% Station Walk 2 14.29% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 2.17% St Peters Church 0 0.00% 1 2.27% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Town 1 7.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.09% Town Hall 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 11.54% 0 0.00% 3 3.26% West Street 0 0.00% 1 2.27% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 2.17%

Total 14100.00

% 44 100.00% 26 100.00% 8100.00

% 92 100.00%

Q9: Anywhere in the area you would like to see a rank? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Patcham 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 9.09%

Sea Front 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 0.00% 2100.00

% 3 27.27% Kingswood Street 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 9.09% Hove 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 9.09% Aldi 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 9.09%

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage XLIX


Hove Town Hall 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 1 9.09% Hove Park Area 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 1 9.09% Station 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 1 9.09%

Preston Park 1100.00

% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 9.09%

Total 1100.00

% 5 100.00% 3 100.00% 2100.00

% 11 100.00%

Q10: Any problems with the local hc service? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Design of vehicle 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Driver issues 1 12.50% 3 23.08% 4 16.00% 0 0.00% 8 17.02% Position of ranks 0 0.00% 2 15.38% 5 20.00% 0 0.00% 7 14.89%

Delay in getting a taxi 3 37.50% 2 15.38% 7 28.00% 1100.00

% 13 27.66% Cleanliness 4 50.00% 5 38.46% 7 28.00% 0 0.00% 16 34.04% Other - COST 0 0.00% 1 7.69% 2 8.00% 0 0.00% 3 6.38%

Total 8100.00

% 13 100.00% 25 100.00% 1100.00

% 47 100.00%

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage L


Q11: What would encourage you to use taxis or use them more often? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Better Vehicle 7 50.00% 10 25.64% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 17 22.08% More hackney carriages I could phone for 0 0.00% 3 7.69% 1 5.00% 1 25.00% 5 6.49% Better Drivers 3 21.43% 4 10.26% 6 30.00% 0 0.00% 13 16.88% More hackney carriages I could hail or get at a rank 1 7.14% 2 5.13% 1 5.00% 0 0.00% 4 5.19% Better located ranks 2 14.29% 5 12.82% 7 35.00% 1 25.00% 15 19.48% Other - CHEAPER COST 1 7.14% 15 38.46% 5 25.00% 2 50.00% 23 29.87%

Total 14100.00

% 39 100.00% 20 100.00% 4100.00

% 77 100.00%

Q12. Do you or anyone you know to have a disability that means you need an

adapted vehicle? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL

No 6 85.71% 30 100.00% 44 95.65% 6100.00

% 80 96.39% Yes - WAV 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% someone I know WAV 1 14.29% 0 0.00% 2 4.35% 0 0.00% 3 3.61% Yes,but not WAV 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Someone I know, but not WAV 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Other 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Total 7100.00

% 30 100.00% 46 100.00% 6100.00

% 83 100.00%

Q13. Have you ever given up waiting for a taxi? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL

No 8 80.00% 53 96.36% 2 33.33% 6100.00

% 69 89.61% Yes 2 20.00% 2 3.64% 4 66.67% 0 0.00% 8 10.39%

Total 10 100.00% 55 100.00% 6 100.00% 6100.00

% 77 100.00%

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage LI


Q14: Are there enough hc in the Brighton and Hove area? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST


Total 10 100.00% 52 100.00% 47 100.00% 5100.00

% 114 100.00%

Q15: Do you feel safe using a hackney carriage? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Daytime - Yes 3 23.08% 55 50.00% 48 50.00% 6 50.00% 106 47.11% Daytime - No 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Night time - Yes 6 46.15% 38 34.55% 39 40.63% 5 41.67% 88 39.11% Night time - No 4 30.77% 17 15.45% 9 9.38% 1 8.33% 31 13.78%

Total 13 100.00% 110 100.00% 96 100.00% 12100.00

% 225 100.00%

Q16: If cycle-drawn rickshaws (pedicabs) were intro in the area, would you use

them? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Yes - frequently 1 14.29% 13 22.41% 14 22.95% 1 16.67% 29 21.97% Yes - every so often 1 14.29% 18 31.03% 24 39.34% 3 50.00% 46 34.85% No - never 5 71.43% 27 46.55% 23 37.70% 2 33.33% 57 43.18%

Total 7 100.00% 58 100.00% 61 100.00% 6100.00

% 132 100.00%

Q17. Do you have regular access to a car? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Yes 24 53.33% 139 56.05% 87 56.13% 22 50.00% 272 55.28% No 21 46.67% 109 43.95% 68 43.87% 22 50.00% 220 44.72% Total 45 100.00 248 100.00% 155 100.00% 44 100.00 492 100.00%

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage LII


% %

Q18. Do you live in the area? LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST


Total 47100.00

% 250 100.00% 155 100.00% 51100.00

% 503 100.00%

Q19. Gender LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Male 26 52.00% 139 56.28% 90 58.82% 25 49.02% 280 55.89% Female 24 48.00% 108 43.72% 63 41.18% 26 50.98% 221 44.11%

Total 50100.00

% 247 100.00% 153 100.00% 51100.00

% 501 100.00%

Q20: Age LONDON RDCHURCHILL

CENTREGEORGE ST

HOVE MARINA TOTAL Under 30 16 31.37% 68 27.09% 0 0.00% 27 52.94% 111 28.17% 31 - 55 29 56.86% 139 55.38% 41 100.00% 12 23.53% 221 56.09% Over 55 6 11.76% 44 17.53% 0 0.00% 12 23.53% 62 15.74%

Total 51100.00

% 251 100.00% 41 100.00% 51100.00

% 394 100.00%

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage LIII


Appendix E Stakeholder Feedback Diary

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage LIV



/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage LV


Chapter Stakeholder Group / Person Date Views returned?

5 SupermarketsSainbury’s Lewes Road 5/15 YWaitrose Western Road 5/15 YAsda Brighton Marina 5/15 Y

HisBE, York Place 5/15 YIceland London Road 5/15 YTesco Western Road 5/15 YTesco Church Road 5/15 Y

Morrison’s St James Street 5/15 RefusedWaitrose Neville Road Hove 5/15 N

Aldi, London Road 5/15 N

5 HotelsAdastral Hotel, Hove 5/15 Y

Brunswick Square Hotel, Brighton 5/15 YMyhotel Brighton 5/15 Y

Artist Residence Brighton 5/15 YHotel Una 5/15 Y

Preston Park Hotel 5/15 NRoyal Pavillion Townhouse 5/15 N

RestaurantsGraze Restaurant, Hove 5/15 YTerre a Terre, Brighton 5/15 Y

Alfresco, Brighton 5/15 YSt Georges Restaurant, Brighton 5/15 N

Indian Summer, Brighton 5/15 N

5 Night clubs / venuesThe Haunt 5/15 N

Charles St, Envy Bar and Club 5/15 NThe Funky Fish Club / Madeira Hotel 5/15 Y

Bohemia Brighton 5/15 NRevolution Bar 5/15 N

Volks 5/15 YThe Old Market Theater 5/15 Y

Club Revenge 5/15 YCoalition 5/15 N

The Marlborough Pub and Theatre 5/15 Unable

5 HospitalsRoyal Sussex County Hospital 5/15 Refused

Brighton General Hospital 5/15 N/ABrighton and Sussex University Hospital 5/15 N

The Montefiore Hospital 5/15 Y

5 Disability, equality and other local group representatives

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage LVI


Geraldine Desmoulins, Fed Centre for Independent Living 9/7/15 Y

Thumbs Up 18/6/15 YAge UK Brighton and Hove 18/6/15 NDisabled Workers Forum 18/6/15 N

Head of Communities and Equality 18/6/15 NSussex Deaf Association 18/6/15 N

Private individual customer 17/6/15 YPrivate individual customer 27/5/15 Y

RNIB 27/5/15 NAssert 25/6/15 Y

Older People’s Council FAdult Social Care 25/6/15 N

Concessionary Travel Team 25/6/15 N

5 Rail / Bus OperatorsSouthern Railway 1/5/15 N

Brighton and Hove Bus Company 1/5/15 NThe Big Lemon 1/5/15 NCompass Travel 19/5/15 Y

5 PoliceBen Hearth, Sussex Police F

5 Council representativesHead of Transport, Mark Prior F

Parking Infrastructure 28/5/15 YHead of Regulatory Services 18/6/15 YHome to School Transport 17/6/15 Y

Head of Tourism and Venues 24/6/15 YBME Workers Forum 27/5/15 YLGBT Workers Forum 27/5/15 N

Disabled Workers Forum 27/5/15 NBrighton and Hove Business Forum 1/5/15 N

Economic Development 1/5/15 NStrategic Director 1/5/15 N

David Golding (contact for portal) Y

6 Hackney carriage and private hire trade

Via survey to all drivers – 105 responses By mid-July 2015 Y

Afghan Taxis Association 2/6/15 NArab Taxis Association 2/6/15 N

Brighton and Hove Radio Cabs FBrighton and Hove Streamline FBrighton Sudanese Taxi Forum 17/6/15 N

City Cabs 17/6/15 NGMB F

Private Hire Association FUnite The Union F

United Taxi Association 18/6/15 YTaxi Link 18/6/15 YNPTTU 17/6/15 N

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage LVII


Independent Drivers 17/6/15 NRichard Hobden, independent 22/6/15 Y

Key – Yes – response received and includedN – no response receivedF – attended face to face consultation day

/tt/file_convert/5a8a4f557f8b9a085a8bd755/document.docxPage LVIII

other reports template web viewsurvey of demand for hackney carriage services. draft final report....

Documents