Taxi Driver Online

This is all a bit pointless, because numbers like this regarding responses in fare consultations are always a bit meaningless.

So apart from a few over-the-top accusations from some in the trade, this isn't particularly illuminating.

And I'm wondering if there's some sort of council amalgamation or shared services going on, which might explain some of the disquiet, but that's not properly explained either

And the actual fare numbers are nonsense as well, and that's not difficult to spot...


Maximum taxi fare agreed for south and west Oxfordshire area

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24281 ... hire-area/

A new maximum taxi fare has been approved for areas of Oxfordshire despite concern the scheme is "rubbish" and the authority responsible is "behaving like a dictator".

The Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire district councils agreed to set the tariff at a cabinet meeting last week.

Drivers will now be allowed to issue a maximum charge of £5.90 per mile for daylight hours and £7.85 for later hours and Sundays or bank holidays.

A consultation, primarily aimed at taxi drivers but also open to other members of the public, was conducted by the councils in February after an email was sent round to traders.

Most respondents in South Oxfordshire - 60 per cent - disagreed with the proposed tariff while six per cent expressed strong support.

Of Vale of White Horse district respondents, 38 per cent agreed with the proposed tariff while 27 per cent disagreed.

One objector said: "Licensing are behaving like dictators just telling us what they say we can charge without properly listening to the trade."

Cabinet member for corporate services, policy and programmes, Andy Foulsham, said he thought the fact of 80 per cent of people opening the survey email was "quite exceptional" and that consultation had been sufficient.

This was despite the fact that no more than 26 people from the Vale of White Horse district and 53 people from South Oxfordshire had got back with a response, the majority being taxi drivers.

This comes as one member of the public said in the public meeting the scheme was "rubbish" amid claims it had not been subject to proper consultation.

Don't think so, somehow

'Per mile' makes it sound like that's the running mile. But I'm guessing those are the charges for the first mile. I mean, a T2 running mile of nearly £8 seems unlikely

This is the official press release, and is slightly odd - absolutely zero mention of any numbers.

And a definite comms/PR vibe about it all

Had a quick look at the council papers, but still can't work out the relevance of South Oxfordshire District Council - this seems to be a conventional fare-setting process for only Vale of White Horse Council

(I think they do have shared services, so it probably is a joint fare-setting process, but you certainly don't get that impression from the press release below. However, this other website indicates that there's an overlap between the two councils in terms of services etc:

https://www.southandvale.gov.uk/ )


Council agrees new taxi fares for Vale

https://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/uncateg ... -for-vale/

Vale of White Horse District Council has agreed new Hackney carriage fares for the district this month.

The new tariff sets a maximum hackney carriage fare and also outlines the time periods for when different costs apply. As a maximum tariff, drivers can choose to charge passengers a lower rate if they wish.

Setting tariffs is a standard practice across the country and something the council, as the licensing authority, is empowered to do by law. It is also an important part of protecting the public’s interests by ensuring consistent and transparent rates.

The new tariff only applies to Hackney carriage taxis and for their journeys within the district. It does not apply to private hire taxis, which people book in advance. It has been calculated using a robust, tried and tested method – called the Guildford Method. The method applied by Vale of White Horse also uses information relevant to the district – including average salaries and the costs associated with running a taxi – to ensure the tariff is fair.

The new tariff was unanimously agreed at Cabinet on Friday 19 April. The report to Cabinet also included details of all the feedback the council received during the taxi tariff consultation, which ran from 31 January to 19 February 2024.

Cllr Bethia Thomas, Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council, said: “In light of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, it is important for us to set a reasonable maximum tariff people will be charged for a journey. We put the proposed tariff out to public consultation, and we have also used a robust way of calculating the figures suitable for our district. We believe we have found a fair balance for Hackney Carriage customers and taxi drivers.”

The full report to Cabinet can be found here.

Spot the contradiction


Isn't that one of those fare forumulas that totally ignores basic supply and demand analysis?

In particular, looking at the demand side, it's a bit like charging £100 for kebab and chips and assuming someone like Sussex will neither say nothing, nor maybe consider buying something else. Or buying nothing at all

I've never seen a single fare rise proposal deal with supply and demand, other than maybe a local trade won't apply for a rise if demand is rubbish.

Yes, the likes of Uber offer surge pricing, which I suppose is akin to what you suggest, but I don't think a 20% rise based solely on a 20% increase in punters would ever be accepted, nor I doubt would be suggested.

_________________
IDFIMH

On the contrary, it's also quite common for councillors to question whether fare increases will price customers out of the market, or whatever, which is essentially price/demand analysis.

On the supply side, it's often stated, by trade bigwigs in particular, that an increase in fares will attract more drivers, or at least help retain existing ones. Which again is price/supply analysis, effectively.

On the other hand, you're right in that there's never any real attempt to quantify these things in terms of hard numbers, nor to look at the whole thing, er, holistically

By which I mean, essentially, that in a higher fare area compared to a similar lower fare area, the higher fares will mean drivers spending more time doing nothing, while the drivers in the lower fare area will be busier...

Anyways...


Decrease, you mean?

No.

A 20% decrease in fares when work has increased 20% would increase demand.

Whereas a 20% increase in fares when work has increased 20% would more than likely decrease demand to meet the supply better.

_________________
IDFIMH

Ah, gotcha - I thought you meant a price-led increase in demand* rather than an increase in demand justifying a price increase

Anyway, as usual I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Whatever we were disagreeing about - can't really be bothered looking back now, but kept on reminding myself that I intended replying to this thread

*Which might actually be a thing with luxury goods, say, but not in normal price/demand analysis.

(And just looked that up - it's a 'Veblen good'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

There may be an element of Veblen good as regards why people will book the likes of Uber irrespective of price surging, or whatever. A bit like why people will pay more for a Macbook rather than the Windows equivalent, say. But, of course, the more obvious reason people will book an Uber despite price-surging is simply convenience, because supply and demand are matched - which is more like the basic supply/demand model rather than the likes of Veblen goods ).