| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| mmmmmmmmmm http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11894 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | mmmmmmmmmm |
16. Our witnesses from Liverpool and Manchester considered that the reduction in PHVs was one of the strongest reasons for opposing deregulation. We were told that while taxis served the city centres, private hire vehicles served residential areas, particularly in deprived areas with low levels of car ownership.28 As Councillor Swannick of Manchester said: “the worry is that by moving directly to an unrestricted situation in Manchester we would, in effect, deprive some of the areas which are dependent on private hire vehicles – for the residents – by putting more cabs in the centre. That would benefit the centre but it would not necessarily benefit residential areas.”29 Although the OFT suggested that derestriction could lead to more cabs plying for hire in suburban areas, they conceded “it may not be sufficient”.30 The OFT’s surveys did not consider the interrelationship between the taxi and PHV markets, particularly in cities. No sensible policy can be made without proper information on this. 17. The OFT also failed to consider the relationship between taxi numbers and taxi availability, resting its assertions that the supply increased on seemingly limited survey data. Many of our witnesses drew our attention to the fact that vehicles in areas with restrictions are frequently “double driven”, so that two drivers use them.31 This means that taxis are available even at unsociable hours, whereas in derestricted areas drivers will concentrate on peak hours and choose to work more sociable shifts. This argument was not restricted to those representing the taxi trade: Mr Edwards of Liverpool City Council told us: “I have a fear that if you increase the number of hackney carriage drivers there will be no surplus to double-shift vehicles, and that may impact on the availability of taxi cabs at peak periods, despite having more vehicles.”32 31 Q 46, see also North Western Taxi Associations Response to the OFT Report; Jacobs Consultancy, Review of OFT Conclusions regarding Quality Controls, North Western Taxi Association; York Hackney Carriage Association, Response to the OFT Report on the Regulation of Taxi Quality Control 18. Since the OFT does not choose to address the issue of double-driving adequately there is no way we can be certain that lifting restrictions will not reduce the availability of taxis at off-peak hours, as vehicles are no longer shared by two drivers during a single day. Reduced choice 19. The OFT claims that “if there are few taxis available, consumer choice is restricted as to the type of transport they can use. Consumers who otherwise would have taken a taxi may have to opt for other, less preferred and less suitable, modes of transport.”33 It is true that a shortage of vehicles for hire will restrict consumer choice, but since the report does not address the significant reduction in the overall number of vehicles for hire in areas where quantity controls were lifted, or deal adequately with the effects of derestriction on the telephone market, it is impossible to assert that derestriction would increase consumer choice. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
And the source of your post is ..... ? |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: And the source of your post is ..... ?
HP |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
oh sorry, i thought you said SAUCE http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /25104.htm |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wannabeeahack wrote:
Sorry, I did mean sauce; my mistake!! |
|
| Author: | tom2907 [ Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is a response to a 2003 report. With today,s situation in Manchester it is hardly relevant. |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
has there been a more recent one? |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wannabeeahack wrote: has there been a more recent one?
No, but it was all a mess then, and can't see them repeating the mess. |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: wannabeeahack wrote: has there been a more recent one? No, but it was all a mess then, and can't see them repeating the mess. more like they will us the old report as a valid reference... |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|