Page 1

An Examination of the Taxi Supply

in the Lower Mainland

prepared for

The Motor Carrier Commission

British Columbia

Bonnie Evans

John Webb

October 2001

Page 2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. iv

Methodology............................................................................................................v

Executive Summary..................................................................................................1

Background .........................................................................................................1

Stakeholder Observations......................................................................................3

Other Jurisdictions................................................................................................5

Factors Affecting Taxi Supply and Availability..........................................................6

Summary of Options.............................................................................................8

Introduction ............................................................................................................9

Background...........................................................................................................11

Current State of the Industry...............................................................................11

Regulation .........................................................................................................15

Stakeholder Observations .......................................................................................18

Industry ............................................................................................................18

Vancouver International Airport Authority.............................................................23

Vancouver Port Authority ....................................................................................24

Public Transit.....................................................................................................25

Hotel and Doorman’s Associations........................................................................26

Municipalities .....................................................................................................26

City of Vancouver......................................................................................................... 27

City of Burnaby ............................................................................................................ 28

Cities of Surrey and New Westminster ........................................................................... 28

Cities of Richmond, North and West Vancouver.............................................................. 29

Consumer Groups...............................................................................................31

People with Disabilities ................................................................................................. 31

Seniors ........................................................................................................................ 32

Regulating Taxicab Supply: Other Jurisdictions.........................................................34

The Ontario Experience: Changing regulations in Toronto and Ottawa ....................38

Ambassador Taxis in Toronto........................................................................................ 39

Ottawa’s Taxi Review ................................................................................................... 40

Criteria determining supply in Toronto and Ottawa......................................................... 41

Factors Affecting Taxi Supply and Availability ...........................................................43

Supply...............................................................................................................43

Availability .........................................................................................................44

Formulae and Ratios...........................................................................................45

Share/Plate Values .............................................................................................46

Other Issues..........................................................................................................49

Enforcement and Regulatory Process ...................................................................49

Options.................................................................................................................50

Supply...............................................................................................................52

Criteria ..............................................................................................................55

Boundaries ........................................................................................................57

Choosing Among the Options ..............................................................................59

Appendix A: Notice to Industry................................................................................62

Appendix B: Terms of Reference .............................................................................63

Appendix C: Questionnaires ....................................................................................66

Page 3

iii

Appendix D: List of Respondents.............................................................................69

Industry ............................................................................................................69

Municipalities and Districts ..................................................................................69

Other Stakeholders

...............................................................................................70

Bibliography ..........................................................................................................71

Articles, studies, reviews and submissions ............................................................71

Statutes, Bylaws.................................................................................................74

Online Sources...................................................................................................76

Newspaper articles, press releases.......................................................................77

Index of Tables

Table 1: Licensed Taxi Companies Operating in the Lower Mainland................ 12

Table 2: Ratio of Taxis to Population: Lower Mainland.................................... 13

Table 3: Estimated Price for One Share in the Greater Vancouver Area*.......... 14

Table 4: One Taxi Company’s Annual Statistics: Year 2000 ............................. 19

Table 5: Consumer Demand by Type and Time of Day ................................... 20

Table 6: Municipal Responses to questions of supply...................................... 30

Table 7: Proportion of Wheelchair Vans in the Lower Mainland........................ 31

Table 8: Municipal Licence Fees in the Lower Mainland................................... 44

Table 9: Taxi-Population Ratios in Major Metropolitan Areas ........................... 45

Table 10: Summary of Options...................................................................... 51

Page 4

Acknowledgements

We would first like to thank the Motor Carrier Commission of British Columbia and its

Chair, Claude Heywood, for the opportunity of preparing this report for the Commission.

We would also like to acknowledge the cooperation of the many organizations and

individuals who participated in this consultation process. In particular we would like to

thank the BC Taxi Association and the Vancouver Taxi Association as well as those

companies and individuals within the taxi industry who took the time to answer our

questions and provide us with information and statistics.

We are also grateful for the cooperation of the various municipalities, especially the City

of Vancouver, as well as TransLink, the Port of Vancouver, the Vancouver International

Airport Authority, the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the North Shore Disability

Resource Centre, the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, the Seniors’ Advisory

Council, and the Vancouver Hotel and Doorman’s Associations.

The staff of the Motor Carrier Department, in particular Doris Sundquist, were always

ready to answer questions and supply information.

The Taxi Advisory Committee of the Motor Carrier Commission not only supplied us with

contacts and information, but also met with us to review draft sections of the report.

This report would not have been possible without the assistance and support of the staff

of the Motor Carrier Commission. In particular we would like to thank Jan Broocke,

Director and Secretary to the Commission, whose help and advice was invaluable, along

with staffers Lisa James, Sharlene Ferguson and Michael McGee.

The individuals who gave so freely of their time and expertise in this process are listed in

Appendix D.

Page 5

Methodology

This consultation process was commissioned by the Motor Carrier Commission in May of

2001.

We were asked to address the issue of taxi supply in the Lower Mainland, an area that

includes the Fraser Valley extending east as far as Harrison Hot Springs, and to attempt

to find answers to a number of questions including:

• Is the current supply of taxis adequate?

• What criteria should the Motor Carrier Commission use to determine supply?

• What would be the impact of increasing supply?

• Are there objective factors or indices that can be used to assess the supply?

Under our terms of reference we were asked to consult with industry, municipalities,

relevant government ministries or agencies, as well as other stakeholders such as the

Vancouver Airport Authority, the Port of Vancouver, the Tourism Bureau, and advocacy

organizations for people with disabilities and seniors. Along with those consultations, we

undertook an extensive literature review, and telephone and email correspondence with

other jurisdictions that have been grappling with the issue of supply in order that we

might assess their methods and outcomes. In particular we looked at the process and

outcomes of extensive review and reform in both Ottawa and Toronto. In addition we

drew on data acquired during the taxi study of 1999 that resulted in

A Study of the Taxi

Industry in British Columbia

, (the Lanyon Report) and from the submissions made in a

public hearing on the issue of supply of taxis in the Lower Mainland held by the Motor

Carrier Commission in September of 1999 (after the release of the Lanyon report).

It is important to note that our Terms of Reference do not ask for recommendations, but

rather for a series of options along with an analysis of their relative strengths and

weaknesses. We will attempt to lay out those options, drawing on both our exchanges

with representatives of the various stakeholders and our extensive research into the

repercussions of change in other jurisdictions.

Page 6

Questionnaires were distributed to municipalities and other stakeholders and interviews

were conducted either in person, by telephone or via mail/email.

Our research materials are listed in the Bibliography. Our terms of reference are

contained in Appendix B. A complete list of individuals and agencies who participated in

this review is listed in Appendix D and the questionnaires we distributed are reproduced

in Appendix C.

Page 7

Executive Summary

The taxi industry in North America and Europe has been subject to various regimes of

regulation for the past 366 years. In Canada regulation of supply was imposed in most

cities during the thirties and forties. An exception to this was Montreal, where the supply

of taxis was actually deregulated following WWII.

During the latter decades of the twentieth century, major cities in most western and

some eastern countries experimented with various forms of deregulation and selective

regulation. Such changes were usually accompanied by studies, analyses, public

hearings and reviews. British Columbia was no exception. A series of studies of the

industry have been undertaken in this province, most recently

A Study of the Taxi

Industry in British Columbia

(the Lanyon Report)

While the Lanyon Report commented

on all aspects of the industry, it specifically refrained from making recommendations on

either taxi supply or territorial boundaries.

Background

There are 35 companies licensed to operated taxis in the Lower Mainland. These

companies hold a total of 1,233 certificates (plates) including approximately 85 for

wheelchair accessible vehicles. The largest companies are in Vancouver, Burnaby and

Surrey, with an average fleet size of 112. By comparison, in municipalities with a

population under 100,000, company size ranges from two or three cars to a high of ten.

Industry sources report that approximately 80 – 85% of owners drive their cars for at

least one shift. Other drivers are either casual hires or, more likely, have a lease

agreement with the owner. Lease rates, according to industry sources range from

$1,500 to $2,000 per month. That rate does not include fuel, insurance, maintenance or

dispatch fees. Dispatch fees average approximately $850 per month.

The average ratio of taxis to population in the Lower Mainland is 1:1381, considerably

below that of most other major Canadian metropolitan areas where the average ratio is

1:714.

Page 8

The supply of taxis is limited through regulation. The Motor Carrier Commission (MCC)

licences a fleet and stipulates the number of vehicles that a licensee may operate. Each

vehicle must have a motor carrier certificate and plate. A licensee may apply, through

the regulatory process to increase the number of certificates/plates held under the

licence. Within this regulatory structure, the taxi industry has, through the creation of

corporate structures, made it possible for individual shareholders to transfer (i.e. sell)

individual shares in the company that represent all or part of a certificate/plate. The

usual practice in Vancouver is for one share to represent the equivalent of one-half a

certificate/plate – each plate being worth two shares. Because the value of certificates is

very high, most sales are of one share, rather than of the whole certificate.

While Vancouver has one of the lowest ratios of taxis to population, it has one of the

highest share values in North America. Purchase of a share essentially gives the owner

the right to one-half of a certificate – in other words, the right to drive a taxi 12 hours

per day. Share values are difficult to ascertain, and vary according to location and other

factors, but industry sources tell us that the price of a single share ranges from a low of

$75,000 to a high of $210,000.

Regulation

Taxi supply is controlled through both the issuing of licences and certificates by the

Motor Carrier Commission of British Columbia and the issuance of municipal licences.

The MCC also controls, through the conditions of licence, the territory in which the

licensee may operate. Holders of MCC plates are also required to hold municipal

business licences in the territories where they operate. Most municipalities also have

bylaws which regulate some aspects of the taxi service in their municipalities. The most

stringent standards are imposed by the City of Vancouver. In a few cases, municipalities

have withheld approval of municipal licences to owners of MCC issued plates.

Page 9

In 1998 the MCC imposed a moratorium on licensing for all forms of passenger services

that would have an impact on taxi services. In September of 1999, that moratorium was

lifted for other forms of passenger service, but continued for taxicabs.

Stakeholder Observations

Meetings with the two industry associations were dominated by discussions of boundary

issues, enforcement and the need for greater flexibility in operations. Neither association

was opposed to an increase in supply, although the Vancouver Taxi Association saw a

greater need for an increase. They felt that Vancouver could accommodate another 25-

30 taxis. Both associations were opposed to increasing supply through the issuance of

licences to new companies, preferring to increase supply through the granting of

additional plates to existing companies. Both also suggested that caution should be used

in adding new plates while the impact on existing plates holders was assessed.

There were some differences between the companies operating inside Vancouver and

those operating in other areas in assessing their peak busy times, but all agreed that a

wait time of up to 25 minutes during busy times was not unusual. Wait periods were

influenced by the time of day, weather, season and special events. Both associations

pointed out that wait times during rush hours would not be eliminated by an increase in

taxi supply as traffic congestion was the predominate factor at those times.

All companies are aware of an increased need and demand for wheelchair accessible

vehicles. The Vancouver Taxi Association felt that a change to their conditions of licence,

allowing them to use larger van-type vehicles would free up wheelchair accessible

vehicles to more exclusively serve people with disabilities. Currently wheelchair

accessible vehicles are in demand, because of their larger carrying capacity, for cruise

ship passengers and downtown shoppers with large parcels.

Companies feel the need for more flexibility in the terms of licensing. They would like to

be able to use a certain proportion of their plates on a part time basis in order to more

efficiently respond to the peaks and lulls in their businesses. Presumably this could come

Page 10

in the form of non-transferrable licences which, having no share value, would remain

profitable despite operating for fewer hours.

The Associations are divided on the issue of boundaries. Companies outside Vancouver

would like to see boundary restrictions removed or at least eased during peak times.

The Vancouver companies want boundaries to remain in place at all times and

enforcement of those boundaries to be stepped up.

Heavy users of taxi services, such as the Vancouver Airport, the Port of Vancouver and

the major downtown hotels, all reported delays during peak hours. The Port has

particular problems as it may need to transport as many as 6,000 to 9,000 passengers

within a two-hour time frame during the summer cruise ship season. It feels it could use

substantially more taxis than are now available, and would like to see boundaries

opened in order to use companies from outside the city.

Hotel and doorman’s associations pointed out that there is a high demand among their

customers for luxury vehicles, a niche market that neither limousine or taxi companies

have been able to fill. The MCC has recently issued 19 certificates to limousine

companies for such vehicles in order to supply that market, however City of Vancouver

bylaws will have to be amended in order for the City to grant municipal licences.

Municipalities, for the most part, feel that the supply of taxis, with the exception of

wheelchair accessible vans, is adequate. While Vancouver and Burnaby have guidelines

spelling out a certain ratio of taxis to population, neither are currently using those

guidelines. Only Surrey and Vancouver clearly stated that more taxis were needed. The

City of Vancouver has made representation to the MCC on the need for additional

services in the city. On non-supply issues, the City of Vancouver would like to see the

higher standards they impose on Vancouver taxis applied to companies in the rest of the

region, in particular the Taxi Host program for drivers. It also sees a need to improve

driver training for those drivers who operate wheelchair accessible vans and carry

people with disabilities. Several municipalities said they would like to see an easing of

Page 11

boundaries. Smaller municipalities prefer to leave the question of regulation to the

province, pointing out that their resources are already stretched to the limit.

All stakeholders recognize the need for an increase in wheelchair accessible vehicles.

Advocacy organizations representing people with disabilities had many complaints, not

only about supply but about service and fares as well. In addition, a representative from

the City of Vancouver reported that the City continues to receive complaints about this

aspect of taxi service.

Seniors didn’t perceive supply as inadequate, but also complained about service, driver

attitudes and vehicle cleanliness. They noted that Vancouver companies had a higher

standard of service than those of other parts of the region, and felt that was due to the

TaxiHost program. They would like to see TaxiHost made mandatory throughout the

region.

Other Jurisdictions

Regulators of the taxi industry are primarily concerned with providing a quality service to

the public. Among the objectives of regulation are public safety, consumer protection,

availability of service, quality of service, reasonable profitability of service and reduction

of traffic congestion and pollution. How to accomplish these objectives is the subject of

debate, much of it ideologically driven by those who support free market principles of

supply and demand, and those support government intervention and regulation.

Ideology aside, it would appear that deregulation of the industry usually results in

oversupply, increased fares and consumer complaints, increase in traffic congestion and

aggression, and the elimination of equity in shares/plates or licences. New Zealand

appears to be an exception to this rule. While the supply, at least in urban areas, has

increased dramatically, observers note lower fares, higher standards and a more diverse

range of services. However there are some reports out of New Zealand that indicate

drivers have had a substantial reduction in earnings despite driving longer hours.

Page 12

The government of Australia and most Australian states and territories have undertaken

various extensive reviews of the taxi industry. Both Western Australia and the Northern

Territories have deregulated supply in their regions. In both cases, compensation equal

to the full market value of existing licences was offered to owners at the time of

deregulation.

Both Greater Toronto and Ottawa, as a consequence of amalgamation, have undertaken

extensive reviews and regulatory changes to their taxi industry. Both municipalities

focussed on service quality, driver standards, share/plate value and boundaries. Toronto

introduced a new class of taxis, known as “Ambassador” taxis. With the exception of

wheelchair accessible vehicles, only Ambassador taxis are eligible for new licences in

Toronto. While holders of licences granted before this new regime was introduced

continue to be able to operate and to lease or sell their licences (now known as

“Standard” licences), Ambassador licences are non-transferrable and vehicles can only

be driven by the owner of the licence.

Ottawa, after commissioning two studies and reviewing the various options has adopted

Toronto’s Ambassador system, and is moving toward a gradual elimination of boundaries

within the new municipality.

Toronto, despite a review of criteria for determining taxi supply commissioned in 1997,

has not yet decided on criteria and is considering yet another study. Its current bylaw

stipulates that a maximum of 100 new Ambassador licences may be issued each year.

Ottawa has settled on a taxi/population ratio of 1:668.

Factors Affecting Taxi Supply and Availability

Supply can be regulated in two ways, either directly through restricting the number of

licences or plates issued, or indirectly through stringent vehicle and driver standards

combined with high licence fees. As already noted, the supply of taxis in British

Columbia is controlled through the issuing of licences and plates by the Motor Carrier

Commission at the provincial level and municipalities at the local level. Most companies

Page 13

must obtain municipal business licences and in a few instances, municipalities withhold

those licences or impose additional regulations on the licence holder. With the exception

of wheelchair accessible vehicles, no new permanent licences or plates have been issued

by the MCC since 1998.

Criteria for determining supply vary greatly. Some municipalities use a simple population

ratio, others rely on complaints from the public. Perceptions about the adequacy of

supply are heavily influenced by the availability of the existing supply. Availability

depends on a number of factors including time of day, day of the week, time year,

weather and traffic. Competition also plays a role in determining if more taxis are

needed. Communities well served by alternate means of transportation are less likely to

perceive the taxi supply as inadequate, even if population ratios would indicate

otherwise. Generally speaking, the ratio of taxis to population in the Vancouver area is

substantially below that of other cities.

Boundaries also play a role in the calculation of supply. Drivers who have to return to

their home territories with empty taxis waste hours and fuel and are unavailable to the

public during that time.

Neither the issue of supply nor that of boundaries can be discussed without

acknowledging the underlying issue of share/certificate value. Restricted supply has

resulted in a steady increase in the market price for shares, with prices in Vancouver

going as high as $210,000 for one share. Historically it has been difficult for jurisdictions

to strike a balance between the companies’ need for market stability and the public’s

need for increased and improved service, whether the issue has been undersupply or

oversupply.

In areas where supply has been too tightly controlled a whole new shadow industry of

unlicensed, unregulated cabs has evolved. In both New York and Los Angeles, these

unlicensed cabs out-number licensed taxis. Major centres in Canada are beginning to

experience similar problems. The Pearson Airport has a high number of unlicensed cars

soliciting passengers.

Page 14

Toronto and Ottawa have both attempted to balance the competing interests of the

companies and the public through the implementation of a new licensing classification

under which new licences can be neither transferred nor leased. Called “Ambassador

taxis”, these vehicles can only be driven by their owners and therefore can only operate

for a 12 hour shift. With the exception of wheelchair accessible vans, both cities have

stopped issuing transferable certificates (plates) although taxis licensed under previous

regulations can still be bought and sold.

Summary of Options

Supply

•

Maintain the moratorium on all vehicles

•

Maintain moratorium with the exception of wheelchair accessible

vehicles

•

Continue the moratorium on new licences but grant additional plates

to existing companies.

•

Lift the moratorium and resume the normal process for new plates

and licences.

•

Give primary responsibility for determining supply to municipalities,

the Greater Vancouver Regional District, or another regional

authority

•

Lift the moratorium but only issue a new class of non-transferable

licences with specific standards for driver training and experience

and vehicle age

Criteria

•

Issue plates based on a set ratio of population to taxis

•

Issue plates based on perceived need within communities as

expressed in the application process.

•

Issue plates based on a formula that considers population,

competition, number of visitors, availability of public transit and

other factors.

Boundaries

•

Retain existing boundaries

•

Retain existing boundaries, but allow wheelchair accessible vehicles

to pick up and deliver passengers in any region

•

Ease boundary restrictions at certain times of day and/or for certain

events.

•

Phase in boundary elimination over a period of several years

•

Eliminate all boundaries immediately

Page 15

Introduction

The current interest in the regulation of taxi supply is not new. In 1635, King Charles I

of England ordered the licensing of London hackneys so as “to restrain the multitude

and promiscuous use of coaches”.

And in the same century, a system of licensing

“sedan chairs” was introduced in Japan.

In the more than 300 years since those first

licences were issued, the business of transporting small numbers of passengers on short

trips has been subject to legislation, regulation and review.

Regulation in Canada began in earnest during the nineteen thirties and forties when first

unemployed workers and later soldiers returning at the end of WWII began to flood the

market with taxis. By the end of the 1940s most cities in Canada as well as the United

States had put in place regulations limiting the supply of taxis. An exception to this was

Montreal, where supply was actually deregulated following WWII. Since then,

particularly over the past twenty years, the taxi industry has been regulated, de-

regulated, and re-regulated – in North America and throughout the rest of the world.

Countries as diverse as the United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Korea,

Ireland and Japan have been reviewing and experimenting with various forms of

regulation.

In every case, changes to the regulations governing the supply of taxis have

been highly controversial and subject to the competing interests of existing licence

holders, regulatory bodies, municipalities, and the various stakeholder groups that

represent the general public.

On the positive side, there is a wealth of information available to anyone considering

changes to their own supply regulations. Nearly every possible combination of regulatory

regime has been tried somewhere in the world and the results documented. Most major

cities and/or provinces in Canada have, in recent years, undertaken at least one detailed

studies of their taxi system, and have, as a result, implemented changes.

In British Columbia there have been several such studies. Most recently, in 1999, the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways commissioned

A Study of the Taxi Industry in

British Columbia

, (the Lanyon Report) that looked at the state of the industry

Page 16

throughout the province and made a series of recommendations, some of which have

been adopted through legislation and/or regulation.

Although the Lanyon Report commented on the issue of regulation versus deregulation

of taxi supply, it did not make any recommendations on that subject or on the issue of

boundaries which affect availability. Specifically it said:

There are two issues of primary importance to the industry that we do not

directly address within the framework of this study – that of taxi supply and

territorial boundaries. . . .This issue [territorial boundaries] along with the issue

of supply, is of paramount concern to many in the industry. It is our view that

these issues ought to be included in the long-term public planning process

involving not only the MCC and industry, but the GVTA and the municipalities.

In this report, we will look at both of those issues. One cannot consider the

supply

taxis without also considering their

availability

. While supply is directly controlled

through licensing and regulation, availability is subject to many factors, including time of

day, weather, airport and/or port demands, traffic congestion, availability of alternate

means of transportation and, most significantly, geographical boundaries.

Page 17

Background

Current State of the Industry

Currently there are 35 companies licensed to operate taxis in Regions 14, 14A and 15.

These regions include all of the Lower Mainland and extend up the Fraser Valley as far

as Harrison Hot Springs (District of Kent). These 35 companies hold a total of 1,233

certificates (plates) including approximately 85 plates for wheelchair accessible vans.

Table 1 lists existing licence holders, their location and the number of plates allocated to

them by the Motor Carrier Commission (MCC).

The two largest companies in the region are located in Vancouver where Yellow Cab is

the largest single licence holder with 198 certificates. Black Top, also of Vancouver, is

second in size with 160 certificates, while Bonny’s Taxi of Burnaby is third with 98

certificates. The average number of certificates per company in the three largest

municipalities (Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby) is 112, while in municipalities with a

population of 100,000 to 175,000, the average number per company is 20. For

municipalities with populations under 100,000, numbers range from two or three cars to

a high of ten cars.

Industry sources report that approximately 80 – 85% of owners drive their cars for at

least one shift. The second shift is usually covered through a lease agreement

negotiated on a monthly or yearly basis. Non-owner driven cars are also leased.

According to industry sources, lease rates for a single shift range from $1,500 to $2,000

per month. In addition the lessee is responsible for fuel, insurance, maintenance,

dispatch fees which average $850 monthly – and in some cases – must also provide the

car.

The ratio of taxis to population in the Lower Mainland varies from place to place, but on

average is 1:1381. Table 2 shows a breakdown of ratios by municipality. Because some

companies are licensed to serve in more than one municipality, these figures are not

totally accurate, however, they give a general idea of the range of ratios within the

region. Most other large municipalities in Canada have substantially lower ratios, the

national average being 1:714.

Page 18

Table 1: Licensed Taxi Companies Operating in the Lower Mainland

Location

Company

#Plates

Accessible

Plates

Abbotsford

Abbotsford Taxi

Central Valley Taxi Ltd.

n/a

Matsqui Taxi Ltd.

Agassiz

Agassiz-Harrison Taxi Ltd.

Aldergrove

Aldergrove-Langley

n/a

Burnaby

Bonny’s Taxi Ltd.

Burnaby Select Taxi Ltd.

Queen City Taxi Ltd.

Chilliwack

Bob’s Cabs (1973) Ltd.

n/a

Chilliwack Taxi Ltd.

Sardis Taxi Ltd.

Coquitlam

Gordon Wayne Wilgosh

Bel-Air Taxi (1982) Ltd.

Coquitlam Taxi (1977) Ltd.

Port Coquitlam Taxi Ltd.

Alouette Transit Systems Ltd.

n/a

Delta

Delta Sunshine Taxi Ltd.

Tsawwassen Taxi Ltd.

n/a

Maple Ridge

Meadow Ridge Taxi Ltd.

Syd’s Taxi (1984) Ltd.

Mission

Mission Taxi (1980) Ltd.

New Westminster

Royal City Taxi Ltd.

North Vancouver

North Shore Taxi (1966) Ltd.

Sunshine Cabs Limited

n/a

Richmond

Coral Cabs Ltd.

Kimber Cabs Ltd.

Richmond Cabs Ltd.

Surrey

Guildford Cab (1993) Ltd.

n/a

Newton Whalley Hi-Way Taxi Ltd.

Surdell Kennedy Taxi Ltd.

White Rock South Surrey Taxi Ltd.

Vancouver

Black Top Cabs Ltd.

160

McClure’s Cab (1984) Ltd.

Albert Gary Tarantino

Yellow Cab Company Ltd.

198

Vancouver Taxi

Total

1233

Page 19

Table 2: Ratio of Taxis to Population: Lower Mainland

Location

Population

Taxis

Ratio

Vancouver

543,071

450

1:1206

Burnaby

187,992

113

1:1164

Surrey

323,509

182

1:1778

Abbotsford

111,708

1:2940

Richmond

157,537

1:1694

Coquitlam/Port Coquitlam

157,081

1:1964

New Westminster

52131

1:1133

Chilliwack

63,080

1:2523

North/West Vancouver

126,655

122

1:1038

The overall supply of taxis is limited through regulation. The licence to operate a taxi

company with its accompanying certificates and plates can only be obtained initially

through the regulatory process. The MCC licences a fleet and stipulates the number of

vehicles that a licensee may operate. Each vehicle must have a motor carrier certificate

and plate. The Motor Carrier Act says that a licence may not be assigned or transferred

without the approval of the Commission, and that licensees must maintain “care and

control” of their operations. Nor may a “plate or certificate” be sold independently of the

licence. Each licensee is issued a specific number of plates which may be increased from

time to time through application to the MCC.

Within these parameters, the industry has created corporate structures through which

the transfer of certificates/plates is possible. Companies are structured so that all or a

part of individual plates/certificates are owned beneficially by individual shareholders.

Each share in a company gives the purchaser a portion of the company’s assets (real

estate, dispatch system, etc.) and a 50 per cent interest in one plate. So, for example,

Yellow Cab, a licensee with a total of 198 plates would have 396 shares – each share

including a 50 per cent interest in a certificate/plate. An individual shareholder with two

shares (i.e. 100 per cent of a certificate/plate) will commonly retain one share while

Page 20

selling the second share. Because the value of shares is very high, most sales are of one

share rather than the equivalent of a whole certificate.

The value of a share depends on various factors, including market demand, location,

whether the share is for a day or night shift and whether an airport licence is included.

The purchase price for the share may or may not include an actual car. While we cannot

state definitively the market value of a share, industry sources tell us that the price of a

single share (i.e. the equivalent of half a car) can range anywhere from $80,000 in

Coquitlam to a high of $210,000 for a taxi licensed for use in Vancouver and at the

airport. This means that the cost of a single certificate or plate (two shares) can be as

high as $420,000. This is considerably higher than any other major municipality in

Canada, and higher even than most of the major metropolitan areas in the United States

for which statistics are available. In New York City, for example, where only a handful of

licences were issued after a moratorium that lasted for more than fifty years, individual

plates (the equivalent of two shares in Vancouver) currently have a market price of

between $180,000 and $190,000 (US). Plate prices in Sydney, Australia are valued at

around $350,000 (AU)

while in Dublin, Ireland the average plate costs £80,000.

Table 3 shows the range of estimated prices paid for shares in the Vancouver area.

Table 3: Estimated Price for One Share in the Greater Vancouver Area*

Vancouver

$140,000 - $210,000

Burnaby

$75,000 - $100,000

New Westminster

$60,000 - $80,000

Surrey

$75,000 - $100,000

Coquitlam

$80,000

* Note: These are estimates only and don’t necessarily reflect actual sales.

Page 21

Regulation

The number of taxis in the Lower Mainland is controlled through the licensing structure

of the Motor Carrier Commission (MCC) and the bylaws of municipal governments. In

addition, the Vancouver International Airport Authority contracts with individual

companies for airport service. If the contracted companies do not have airport service as

part of their condition of licensing, they must request a change from the MCC. Most

licences in the Vancouver area, issued by the Motor Carrier Commission, are for five

passenger sedans. Competing forms of transportation such as limousines, shuttle buses

and courtesy cars either operate under different conditions of licence or are unregulated

and are not specifically included in this study.

The MCC, as a condition of licensing, stipulates the territory in which a company is

authorized to conduct its business. Companies can deliver passengers to any

destination, but are not generally allowed to pick passengers up or solicit business

outside their designated zones. That means, for example, that a Burnaby company

licensed only to operate with the City of Burnaby can deliver a passenger to Vancouver

or White Rock, but cannot be dispatched to or pick up passengers in those

municipalities. Some companies operate within one municipality, but many are licensed

to operate in more than one. Thus Surrey companies may also serve Delta, and North

Vancouver companies operate in West Vancouver. Any company whose area of

operation includes more than one municipality generally has to obtain a municipal

licence for each separate municipality.

In October of 1998, the MCC issued notice that it would not accept any applications for

licensing in the Lower Mainland which would alter the supply of taxis, or any other

applications for passenger services which would impact on taxi services.

The MCC delayed hearings on this matter until the completion of a study commissioned

by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways,

A Study of the Taxi Industry in British

Columbia

, (the Lanyon Report).

Page 22

The Lanyon Report did not comment directly on issues of taxi supply, although it did

touch on many of the factors that affect supply. It reviewed the effects of deregulation

of supply in various other jurisdictions, but did not make recommendations concerning

deregulation. It also refrained from making recommendations on the issue of boundaries

which is one of the primary factors influencing both supply and availability.

As a result of the recommendations of the Lanyon Report, the Province passed

legislation that eliminated the issuing of municipal taxi licences to companies lacking

MCC licences. Thus the Commission became the primary licensing body for taxi

companies throughout the province. At least some municipalities continue to grant or

withhold municipal licences to MCC authorized companies as well as to regulate service

and safety standards.

Municipal bylaws controlling licensing and standards for taxis vary from municipality to

municipality and are complicated by the confusion among some municipalities about

their powers under the Local Government Act (previously called the Municipal Act).

Several representatives of municipalities commented that they didn’t implement

standards and/or criteria for their local taxi companies because they felt they had no

authority to do so. Others have set in place vehicle and driver standards. The City of

Vancouver has the most stringent standards for taxi companies operating within its

jurisdiction, including standards of vehicle age, size and safety, driver qualifications and

means of operation.

In September of 1999, the MCC held a public hearing on the issue of the supply of taxis

in the Lower Mainland. As a consequence of that hearing, the MCC continued its

moratorium as it applied to “taxicabs” as defined by the Commission. However, the

moratorium was lifted on other forms of passenger transportation systems, for example,

limousines.

In March of 2001, the Commission notified the industry that it would be undertaking

consultations with industry, municipalities and other agencies and stakeholders in order

to gain a better understanding of perceptions about the supply of taxis and in order to

Page 23

identify factors that influence the supply of taxis in the region. The moratorium would be

continued until that consultation process was completed. (Appendix A: Notice to

Industry)

Page 24

Stakeholder Observations

Industry

Meetings were held with the two industry associations. The Vancouver Taxi Association

represents three of four companies operating within the City of Vancouver, Yellow Cab

Company, Black Top Cab Company and McClure’s Cabs. The BC Taxi Association is a

provincial organization representing many of the companies outside of Vancouver and

one company in Vancouver. The meetings were dominated by issues of boundaries,

enforcement, and regulatory flexibility. On the specific question of supply, there was

general agreement among the representatives of the Vancouver Taxi Association that

the city could sustain another 25 – 30 taxis with certain provisos, while the BC Taxi

Association was less certain of the need to increase supply.

Both associations, understandably, were strongly opposed to issuing licences to new

companies who might wish to enter the market. They would like to see any increase in

supply come in the form of additional certificates/plates issued to existing companies. As

noted above, share prices are very high in this region and shareowners were especially

concerned with protecting the value of their investment. There were suggestions by

both associations that new licences and/or plates should be added incrementally or as

temporary, time-limited plates while the impact on existing business is studied.

Both Associations said that the use by specific client populations as well as the weather,

season, and the time of month/week/day determine how busy they are. The Vancouver

Taxi Association reported a marked difference in demand between daytime and night

time shifts, as did several members of the BC Taxi Association. However, one

representative from a Surrey company said that an analysis of their trips sheets showed

no difference between the day and night time shifts – that both shifts averaged 1000

trips per day with 30 cars.

Page 25

One company, operating in the City of Vancouver and at the Vancouver International

Airport, provided us with their statistics for the year 2000 which are detailed in Table 4.

Table 4: One Taxi Company’s Annual Statistics: Year 2000

Average trips per cab

15,020

Trip cost average

$7.70

Average vehicle revenue

$115,647.77

Average wait time (normal conditions)

8 minutes

Average wait time (inclement)

14 minutes

Average travel time

14 minutes

Average distance traveled

3.25 kms.

YVR trips as percentage of total trips

1.56%

Percentage of YVR trips to downtown core

70%

Vancouver taxis are busiest at rush hour on a rainy day, and wait times for customers

during those times can be very long. Average wait times during normal periods for both

associations were reported as averaging 10 minutes under normal conditions (i.e. not

rush hour) and up to 25 minutes during peak times or inclement weather. With the

exception of Burnaby, whose patterns closely follow those of Vancouver, taxi companies

in the outlying municipalities, such as Surrey, New Westminster, and Coquitlam, are

busiest during the winter. Vancouver and Burnaby companies both profit from

Vancouver’s summertime tourism industry, while other municipalities experience a

slowdown in summertime business. In the words of one representative of a taxi

company in Surrey, “People don’t come to Surrey in the summer; people leave Surrey in

the summer.”

All companies report that they are very busy near the end of the month when social

assistance cheques are issued. They also reported a dramatic increase in the use of taxis

by social service and other agencies (e.g. Ministry of Human Resources, Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia, Workers’ Compensation Board) to transport their

clients.

Page 26

Table 5: Consumer Demand by Type and Time of Day

Vancouver Taxis

Suburban Taxis

4– 6 am

Airport trips

6 – 9 am

(Rush hour) Airport,

Workers, schools, cruise

ships

(Rush hour) workers,

schools, post office, airport

10 am – 2 pm

(Lull) workers moving

around downtown, seniors,

medical appointments,

MHR, WCB clients

(Steady) Seniors, medical

appointments, courier

services, MHR, WCB clients

2 pm- 5 pm

(Rush hour) workers,

schools

(Rush hour) workers,

schools, post office, ball

teams

5 pm – 7 pm

End of rush hour,

restaurants, shows

Handidart overruns, tour

bus drop-offs, restaurants

7 pm – 3 pm

(Very slow) except for mini-

rush at bar closing

bars, casinos, restaurants,

shows (including employees

of those businesses)

Weekends

(Busy) tourists, shows,

bars, restaurants

(Slow) shows, bars,

casinos, restaurants

Summers

(Busy) extra tourist volume

(Slow) Very limited tourist

activity, little school activity

Proximity to major transportation centres such as the Port of Vancouver and BC Ferry

terminals has an impact on demand, although in the case of the Port, the demand

comes in a very narrow window. Both associations complained about competitors who

either operate under different conditions of licence from the taxi companies, such as

limousines and shuttle buses, or who are unregulated, for example, vanpools.

HandiDart, a service for transporting people with disabilities, came in for a large share of

Page 27

the criticism as a subsidized competitor. While several companies also have working

relationships with HandiDart, taking their overflow, it is an uneasy relationship at best.

The associations suggested a variety of criteria for evaluating the need for an increase in

the supply of taxis. Wait times, population increases, increase in arrivals at the airport

and port were all suggested as factors to be considered. One representative from Surrey

felt strongly that no single formula is really workable because local factors vary

significantly from place to place. Several representatives from both associations pointed

out that wait times during rush hour are not likely to be significantly affected by an

increase in the supply of taxis, as traffic conditions (traffic gridlock, construction) are the

dominating factors during that time.

Both associations agree that there is a need for an increase in wheelchair accessible

vans. One company in Vancouver reported that demand for wheelchair accessible

service exceeded their capacity by 600%. A Surrey representative reported that the

addition of four wheelchair accessible vans to their company fleet had no negative

impact on ridership in the rest of their fleet, but rather brought them new ridership and

increased referrals from HandiDart.

The Vancouver Taxi Association pointed out that the wheelchair accessible vans

currently on the road are often used at venues like the Port of Vancouver, where

passengers tend to have more luggage than will fit in a conventional taxi. They pointed

out that the acquisition of non-wheelchair accessible vans would meet the demand for

increased carrying space. This would have the effect of freeing up wheelchair vans to

serve the customers who need them. The City of Vancouver recently amended its

bylaws to allow the use of non-wheelchair accessible vans. Companies wishing to take

advantage of this change by adding such vans to their fleets will have to apply to the

MCC for a change in their conditions of licence.

Both associations feel that the restrictions imposed by regulations make it more difficult

to run profitable businesses, and in discussing the possibility of an increase in supply,

had several suggestions as to the issuance of licences that would allow them to operate

Page 28

more efficiently. They talked about the need for more flexibility in hours of operations –

that a system whereby some plates could be used on a part time basis during busy

periods, rather than 24 hours a day would give them much needed flexibility.

It should be noted, however, that there appears to be some misunderstanding as to

regulation. There is no Motor Carrier licensing requirement that compels licence holders

to operate their vehicles 24 hours per day, so it may be that the motivation to keep cars

on the road all the time has more to do with the need to cover lease or share costs than

with regulation.

The associations are sharply divided on the issue of boundaries. Because specific

geographic locations are designated as part of a company’s conditions of licence, taxis

can deliver, but generally cannot pick up passengers outside of those locations. At

dispute is the lucrative Vancouver market with its high volume of business, hotel and

airport traffic. The Vancouver Taxi Association supports the current system of closed

boundaries and complained about cabs from other municipalities who poach rides in

their territory. The BC Taxi Association, on the other hand, pointed out that allowing

their companies into the Vancouver market, at least during rush hours, would go a long

way toward solving the problems of availability without necessitating an increase in

overall supply. They also noted that driving an empty cab back to their licensed districts

is a waste of fuel and drivers’ time and only contributes to the traffic and pollution

problems of the Lower Mainland.

A further argument was made by the BC Taxi Association on behalf of consumers. They

pointed out that clients, especially tourists, were unlikely to understand that certain

companies were unable to pick up in Vancouver, and that it created a bad impression of

the city and its taxis when the drivers of obviously empty cabs refused to pick up

passengers. There are conflicts at hotels as well. If a suburban cab drops a customer off

at a hotel and there are people waiting for a taxi, the doorman is likely to insist that the

suburban taxi take his customers. As one representative put it, “Hotels don’t care about

boundaries. They just want service for their customers.”

Page 29

The Vancouver Taxi Association, on the other hand, argued that opening boundaries

would mean an influx of taxis from areas such as Surrey and New Westminster into the

most profitable areas of the city, and that once there, they would be reluctant to leave,

thereby reducing the Vancouver companies’ ability to make a living while leaving

suburban areas underserved by their own companies. There is some evidence from

cities like Seattle, and Cleveland that this might indeed be a consequence of removing

boundaries. However, because the removal of boundaries was part of a general

deregulation of the industry in those cities, it is difficult to tie specific regulatory changes

to specific consequences. The Vancouver Taxi Association would like boundaries to

remain in place and enforcement of those boundaries increased. They argued that

increased enforcement could be covered through the increased revenue from tickets.

It should be noted, however, that the issue of boundaries cannot be resolved without

cooperation among municipalities. Even if the MCC changed the conditions of licence in

order to eliminate boundaries, municipalities would have to issue municipal licences in

order for companies to work in their jurisdictions. Experience in other jurisdictions has

shown that municipal governments are reluctant to open boundaries if local companies

feel it would have a negative impact on their business.

Vancouver International Airport Authority

Cars from sixteen companies in the Lower Mainland are licensed by the MCC and

contracted by the Vancouver Airport Authority to pick up passengers at the international

and domestic terminals of the airport. Contracts are signed with individual companies,

and the Authority determines its own criteria for driver and vehicle standards. According

to an airport representative, the supply of taxis is usually adequate except during

afternoon rush hours, 4:00 to 6:00 pm, when they experience shortages. Demand is

heaviest from May through September. The transit strike of last summer had a

significant impact on passenger service to and from the airport. Shortages of transport

were five times normal.

Page 30

With the building of a new runway and the expansion of the terminals, there has been a

steady increase in passenger volume at the airport, and that increase is reflected in

volume of taxi trips, which were up by 9.4% at the end of 2000. However, much of the

demand for increased transportation has been met through an increase in the number of

hotel and shuttle buses, limousines and car rentals. Parking rates at the airport are also

low enough that many people drive to the airport rather than taking alternate

transportation.

The South Terminal has an exclusive contract with one taxi company. A representative

of the sport-fishing industry whose passengers debark at South Terminal reports

problems with taxi supply and driver attitude, that are especially severe during

afternoon rush hour. It is important to note that her comments are almost exclusively

confined to the time period of the transit strike. Her clients usually require taxis for trips

to the main terminal to make connecting flights. The contracted company will not pre-

book trips and provides only minimal service during rush hour. Drivers frequently refuse

her “short trip” passengers. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that other

companies frequently drop passengers off at South Terminal, but refuse (as is their legal

obligation) to pick passengers up. She reports that on evaluation forms distributed by

her company, airport service is consistently rated as poor or very poor, and that she or

her staff frequently end up having to drive passengers to Main Terminal in their private

cars.

Vancouver Port Authority

During the peak cruise months of June to September, the Port may have as many as

6,000 to 8,000 people disembarking from the larger cruise ships at the same time. Of

that number, approximately 25-30 per cent are looking for a taxi, limousine or shuttle

bus. When smaller ships come in, that number increases to 50-65 per cent of

passengers who need transportation. On weekends, Friday to Monday, both terminals

experience huge spikes in demand from 9:00 to 11:00 am.

Page 31

The Port sees boundary restrictions as a major impediment to their ability to move

people quickly. They would like to take advantage of the suburban companies’

traditionally slow time on weekend mornings to absorb some of their traffic.

Representatives of the Vancouver Port Authority feel it would not be unreasonable to

see an increase in the taxi supply of at least 80 new permanent plates and 80 temporary

plates. While this number would undoubtedly eliminate many of the transportation

problems faced by the Port, it would have major ramifications for Vancouver companies

and probably result in a serious oversupply at those times when there is no Port demand

for service.

Public Transit

It is interesting to note that, while Translink has compiled statistics on every other

conceivable form of transportation – from walking and bicycles to buses, trains and

carpool vans – they have omitted taxis completely. Regional trip surveys break modes of

transportation down into automobile driver, automobile passenger, transit, walk/bike

and other. If we assume that the category of “other” is comprised of all of the various

forms of private transportation systems, then taxi service comprises less than one

percent of transportation in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Translink does mention shared rides as one of the essential links in the movement of

people around the region. The Lanyon Report recommended granting a more flexible

regime to the taxi industry that includes shared rides. Lanyon further recommended that

the taxi industry be included in the planning of public transportation. However,

implementation of public-private partnerships between a unionized public transit system

and a private non-unionized company are fraught with difficulties, especially in respect

to labour relations. One taxi company in Burnaby, for example, entered into a contract

with Translink to provide a chartered trip service which led to job action by the transit

union.

Page 32

In their submission to the 1999 MCC hearing, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local

1724, disputes the conclusions drawn by Lanyon that the use of taxis rather than

subsidized public systems would save taxpayers money.

While the gist of their

submission is focussed on the issue of transporting people with disabilities (HandyDart

versus subsidized taxi service), the general tenor of their comments made it clear that

they are opposed to any shift of transit subsidies to the taxi industry.

Hotel and Doorman’s Associations

The Hotel Association pointed out that there is a serious shortage of taxis during

company shift changes (3:00 – 4:00 pm). In its recommendations, The Lanyon Report

suggested that taxi companies “restructure their shift change procedures in order to

ensure an adequate number of vehicles on the road at all times.”

At least one

Vancouver company, Yellow Cabs has moved toward staggered shifts, but the change

hasn’t been sufficient to solve the problem.

Both the Hotel and Doorman’s Associations reported a strong demand for a particular

niche market – that of business people who want to ride in a luxury vehicle but don’t

want the ostentation of a stretch limousine. They feel there is a definite market for

luxury vehicles such as Cadillacs or Lincoln Towncars to serve that niche market. The

Hotel Association would like to see either limousine or taxi companies fill that demand,

while the Doorman’s Association believes that limousine regulations should be modified

so that they could operate the smaller luxury cars. Subsequent to our interviews, the

MCC moved to grant 19 certificates to eight limousine companies that will enable them

to use luxury vehicles rather than stretch limousines. The City of Vancouver, however

will have to change its bylaws to accommodate these licensees, and probably won’t

review the matter until late fall or early in 2002.

Municipalities

There was a marked contrast in the responses of municipalities to our questions. In

general, smaller municipalities, especially those east of the Port Mann Bridge, felt that

Page 33

regulation of the taxi industry was a provincial responsibility, and that beyond issuing

business licences to local companies they neither had nor wanted authority. They

pointed out that the resources of municipal governments were already severely

stretched and they had no interest in adding taxi regulation to their workload. Several

municipalities did state that there were areas within their jurisdiction that were not

served by public transit, and therefore possibly in greater need of taxi services, but an

improvement in taxi services simply was not something they as districts or municipalities

had considered.

The larger municipalities, particularly those with companies who are licensed to pick up

passengers at the Vancouver Airport, were more interested and more keenly aware of

the various issues surrounding supply, accessibility and boundaries.

City of Vancouver

The City of Vancouver has the most stringent bylaws for taxis. Vancouver companies are

required to comply with regulations of vehicle age and condition as well as driver

training.

The City’s Vehicle for Hire Bylaw stipulates that there shall be no more than 1.2 taxicabs

for every 1,000 residents. Based on that formula, Vancouver could increase its current

supply by 215 taxis. The bylaw also stipulates that new taxis are to be added at a rate

of no more than 10 per year. In its submission to the MCC Hearing in 1999, the City

stated that it would like to see an increase in the supply of taxis, particularly in the

supply of wheelchair accessible vehicles.

The City is currently reviewing its own regulations concerning wheelchair accessible

vehicles. When the City originally issued “dual licences” for vans that could be used for

either general service or wheelchair service, it placed a cap on the total number of

vehicles so designated. Only one company, Vancouver Taxi Ltd., applied for these dual

licences and subsequently received all the available licences. Currently Yellow Cab has

two wheelchair accessible vehicles and Black Top Cabs has one, but they are operating

them under their general licences.

Page 34

The City pointed out that while most residents experience delays at peak periods during

the week and on weekend evenings, people in need of wheelchair vans experience

delays at all times of the day. The City would like to see all Vancouver taxi companies

have accessible vehicles as 10% of their fleet. It is the City’s view that adequate service

to people with disabilities probably can’t be achieved without some sort of subsidy to the

taxicab companies.

Vancouver would like the MCC to consider creative ways of issuing licences, for example,

making use of time limited licences and increased shared ride vehicles. On non-supply

issues, Vancouver feels that Taxi Host should be mandatory for drivers across the

province. It further feels that additional training is necessary for drivers serving people

with disabilities

City of Burnaby

Historically, the City of Burnaby has issued taxi licences whenever the ratio of licences to

population reached 1:2,000 in order to reduce that ratio to 1:1,500. They have also

relied on consumer complaints and reports from local companies of delays, long wait

times and missed calls. Currently the ratio is approximately 1:1,900 which would

suggest that more licences are needed. However, unlike ten years ago when complaints

were frequent, Burnaby now receives virtually no service complaints from the public, nor

have local companies indicated a need for more vehicles. The City would like to see a

partial opening of boundaries so that companies could pick up or deliver customers who

are travelling outside the boundaries.

Cities of Surrey and New Westminster

Both the City of Surrey and the City of New Westminster are currently assessing their

taxi supply. Both cities have companies with MCC approval for additional plates that

have not yet been granted municipal licences. Surrey auctioned its licences, but local

taxi companies, who objected to the auction, sought and obtained an injunction This

matter is now before the courts.

Page 35

The City of New Westminster feels that boundary restrictions should be relaxed as

should restrictions on supply. They feel that the deregulation of supply while maintaining

strict regulation of safety issues would improve service. On the other hand, the City did

not note any complaints as to inadequacy of service.

Cities of Richmond, North and West Vancouver

The City of Richmond and the City of North Vancouver also felt that the supply of taxis

in their respective municipalities is adequate to their needs. Richmond relies on public

complaints to assess the need for increased service. While they had little to say about

supply, Richmond did want to comment on issues of vehicle inspection. They feel that

provincial inspections are inadequate and that cooperation between provincial and

municipal inspectors would improve the situation.

North Vancouver did point out that there was a need in their community for more

wheelchair accessible vans, a situation they would like to see remedied through the

granting of additional plates by the MCC.

The City of West Vancouver has no local taxi company. They are currently served by

Vancouver and North Vancouver companies as well as Sunshine Cabs. They have

received no complaints about that service.

Table 6 gives an overview of municipal responses.

Page 36

Table 6: Municipal Responses to questions of supply

Municipality/District Adequacy of Supply

Criteria to Determine Supply

City of Vancouver

Possibly 20-30 more

vehicles need. Definitely

more w/c vehicles. Quality

of more concern than

quantity.

Population ratio of 1.2 taxis per 1000

population, public complaint, feedback

from companies.

City of North Vancouver

More than adequate with

the exception of w/c

accessible vehicles

Complaint process

District of West

Vancouver

No companies in

municipality. No

complaints about service

from outside companies.

None given

City of Burnaby

Current supply is

adequate.

Historically determined by

taxi/population ratio of 1:1500

City of New Westminster

Not sure. Would need an

extensive review.

No set criteria, but historically has

included service complaints, population

and competition. Feel that supply

should be deregulated.

City of Richmond

Supply is adequate. Have

no complaints.

Supply and demand

City of Surrey

Current supply inadequate.

Need at least 30 new

vehicles

Population ratio (1:930), complaint

process, evaluation of competition

Corporation of Delta

Current supply adequate

except for w/c accessible

vehicles.

No taxi bylaw. No criteria for

establishing need.

City of Coquitlam

No response

City of Port Coquitlam

Current supply appears to

be adequate.

Only 1 complaint in past several years.

No established criteria, left to MCC to

establish levels

City of Port Moody

Serviced through

Coquitlam company. No

complaints about supply

No taxi bylaw. No criteria established

for assessing need. Would like to see

supply deregulated.

District of Pitt Meadows

No companies operating in

district

Not applicable

District of Maple Ridge

No response

City of Langley

No companies licensed by

municipality.

Not applicable

City of White Rock

No local company, served

via Surrey. Not aware of

any problems

Not applicable

District of Chilliwack

No response

City of Abbotsford

Supply adequate

Not applicable

District of Kent

Generally adequate. Only

one small company

Not applicable

Village of Harrison Hot

Springs

No problems

No comments

District of Mission

Supply is adequate

Doesn’t regulate supply

Page 37

Consumer Groups

People with Disabilities

Of the 1,233 taxicabs licensed to operate in the Lower Mainland, approximately 85 or

6.8 per cent are wheelchair accessible vans. Table 7 shows the distribution among the

various municipalities.

Table 7: Proportion of Wheelchair Vans in the Lower Mainland

Most representatives of municipalities, as well as industry spokespeople, agree that

there is a serious shortage of wheelchair accessible vans serving people with disabilities

in the Lower Mainland. This general awareness is due in no small part to the advocacy

efforts of organizations serving the needs of the disabled community. The City of

Vancouver also noted that the majority of public complaints about both availability and

service come from consumers in need of wheelchair accessible vehicles.

The Lanyon Report detailed shortcomings not only in vehicles, but in driver training and

awareness. We heard that little has changed since that report was written. There is still

a serious shortage of wheelchair accessible vans. The problem is compounded by their

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

Maple Ridge

P. Coquitlam

N. West

Coquitlam

Richmond

Burnaby

N. Vancouver

Surrey-Delta

Vancouver

Total # Taxis

W/C Vans

Page 38

use for other purposes. Their extra loading capacity makes them highly desirable for

cruise ship passengers who tend to have a great deal of luggage, for shoppers with

large items to transport, and for transporting students to and from school.

Representatives see the boundary issue as a real problem in improving the availability of

wheelchair vans. They feel strongly that boundaries for such vehicles should be

removed.

We heard that even pre-booked taxis are routinely anywhere from 30 minutes to 1.5

hours late, and that wait time can be as long as 1.5 hours for a van arriving from

Vancouver after a dispatch call from the North Shore. In the opinion of one

representative from the North Shore Disability Centre, consumer complaints are few

because people in the disabled community are afraid that if they complain, companies

will discontinue the service.

In their submission to the MCC Hearings of 1999, the Coalition for People with

Disabilities pointed out that drivers routinely turn meters on at the beginning of loading

and turn them off at the conclusion of unloading. The Coalition views this practice as

discriminatory and feels the extra time should be paid via subsidies. They also proposed

that British Columbia follow the London (UK) model whereby all vehicles due for

licensing by January 1, 2000 must be capable of carrying a wheelchair passenger.

(It

must be noted that the London system is an anomaly in the taxi industry and it is

therefore difficult to draw parallels with other regions.) The British Columbia Paraplegic

Association also made representation at the 1999 Hearings.

They concurred with the

Coalition’s observations that there is a serious shortage of accessible vehicles in the

Vancouver area. They further stated that boundary restrictions for accessible vehicles

should be lifted – an opinion shared by those we interviewed in other advocacy

organizations.

Seniors

The complaints we heard from seniors had less to do with supply than with quality. Like

representatives of the disabled community, they felt that service standards need to be

Page 39

improved and that drivers need more training in order to deal with seniors, especially

those who have disabilities that require the transportation of walkers or service dogs in

the taxi. Vancouver taxi companies were perceived to be far superior to other companies

in terms of service, vehicle cleanliness and driver attitude. Seniors feel strongly that the

TaxiHost program should be mandatory for all drivers. Supply is perceived as generally

adequate, although wait times can be long during bad weather or rush hour.

Page 40

Regulating Taxicab Supply: Other Jurisdictions

The objective, common to all governments or regulatory agencies, that motivates them

to regulate, amend or remove restrictions on the supply of taxis is that of providing a

quality service to the public. In a paper presented to the 7

Congress of the European

Taxi Confederation, Michel Trudel of the Quebec Department of Transportation, spells

out the objectives of public regulation of the industry as:

• public safety;

• consumer protection;

• availability of service;

• service quality;

• reasonable profitability of service; and

• reduced traffic and pollution.

These objectives are echoed in the mandate of the Motor Carrier Commission which is

charged under the Act to:

• promote adequate and efficient service to the public at just and

reasonable charges;

• promote safety on the public highways; and

• foster sound economic conditions in the transportation industry.

It is in the light of those policy objectives that regulations must be reviewed and

reframed as necessary.

How that is best accomplished and what other factors must be considered is the subject

of dozens of studies, reviews, commentaries and debates. For every study suggesting

that a particular approach is effective, there is at least one other study that disputes

that approach. As Trudel observed in his presentation, the answer to the question of

regulation of the taxi industry can be “answered in two ways, depending on two schools

of thought.”

Page 41

“According to the first, local authorities or governments play no role in the

private sector’s supply of services, and market forces are left to balance

themselves based on supply and demand.

The second school believes that government authorities are obliged to intervene

because of what economists call “market imperfections” which prevent the

market from achieving a balance between supply and demand.”

That issue of “market imperfections” means, in part, that the taxi industry does not

respond to economic conditions in the same manner as other businesses. Historically in

an unregulated environment, bad economic times have brought an influx of drivers into

the taxi industry, while in good economic times drivers leave for more lucrative

occupations. This pattern is diametrically opposite to usual business practices. A pulp

mill, for example, will add employees and shifts during good times and cut back during

bad. Taxi operators drive fewer hours in good times (when they can make enough

money to meet expenses in fewer hours) and more in bad times. In order to make

enough money to cover expenses, a taxi driver will expand hours of operation for as

long as is possible.

An unregulated increase in the supply of taxis has essentially the same effect as a

business slowdown. More taxis means fewer trips per cab, and that means longer hours

of operation in order to cover expenses.

Unlike other industries, competition in the taxi industry does not lead to a balance of

supply and demand. While some operators may go out of business because of

oversupply, others will enter the market. In Sweden, for example, 1000 taxi companies

went out of business between 1991 and 1995. Driver and journalist Pepe Arninge,

commenting on the situation in Stockholm seven and a half years after deregulation

offers an explanation:

“While many taxi owners have now given up their jobs and sent their permits

back to the City Council, there are always newcomers who want to try to make

Page 42

some fast money. By establishing a small company, which is easy and takes a

week, they then run their business without any dispatch services or book-

keeping for the permitted 18 months and then put the company into bankruptcy.

The money they have made, without paying any taxes or social welfare, is placed

abroad on [sic] an account that isn't reachable for the taxation authorities.”

Many cities in the United States deregulated taxi supply during the 1980s. If we look at

the outcomes of that deregulation, certain patterns, with a very few exceptions, appear

to be consistent across the board. They include:

• A sudden and dramatic increase in the supply of taxis.

• An increase in customer complaints about service, driver attitudes and/or

skills, trip refusals and fares

• An end to any market value inherent in the purchase or lease of plates

• Destabilization of larger established companies

• Increase in traffic congestion and aggressive competition.

Because of these factors, most jurisdictions in the United States, 21 out of 25, who had

experimented with deregulation, re-regulated at least some part of the industry within

five to ten years. That has not prevented other jurisdictions from continuing to consider

deregulation as a panacea to cure the ills of the taxi industry, but most observers now

feel that it is less of case of deregulation, than one of selective regulation to achieve

public policy objectives.

By contrast, deregulation in New Zealand appears to have been quite successful. New

Zealand deregulated its industry in 1989 as part of sweeping reforms at a time of

economic crisis in the country. Both taxis and limousines were defined as “Small

Passenger Vehicles” and owners of such vehicles were required to obtain a licence.

However, licensees could then operate as many vehicles as they wished. Fares were set

by individual taxi organizations (i.e. dispatch services), and licensees were required to

belong to such an organization.

Page 43

In 1996, the New Zealand Transport Department found that taxi fares had decreased by

as much as 10% from 1989 to 1995, and the number of taxis in urban areas had

significantly increased. In the Wellington region, for example, there were 454 taxis

operating prior to deregulation and 932 five years later. At least one industry observer in

New Zealand claims that, as a result of deregulation, “. . . many new specialized taxi

services sprung up, including taxi vans and executive cabs. There is also a new taxi

charge credit system and more advertising on cabs. Some taxi companies have also

begun tendering for public bus routes.”

On the negative side, there are some reports

that drivers have had a substantial reduction in earnings despite driving longer hours.

Statistics New Zealand reported that in 1999 approximately 33 per cent of drivers

earned between $20,000 and $30,000 per year, while a nearly equal number earned

between $10,000 and $20,000 per year.

There have been a number of studies of Australia’s taxi industry, spurred by the

anticipation of rising demand due to both increased population and an influx of visitors

for the Sydney Olympics, as well as by the example of its nearest neighbour, New

Zealand. Both Western Australia and the Northern Territories have, as a result,

deregulated taxi supply in their regions. In both districts, existing licence holders were

paid full market value for their licences at the time of deregulation. Other districts,

including New South Wales (Sydney), have done extensive studies, but have not yet

implemented changes. The Australian Competition Commission undertook a review of

the whole industry in 1999, and made a series of observations that indicate a trend

toward deregulation of supply coupled with compensation for current licensees as well

as the standardization of regulations for all categories of passenger service vehicles.

In surveying the extensive literature available on taxi regulation and deregulation, it is

difficult to ignore the part that political pressure plays in determining if recommended

changes will be implemented. Unlike British Columbia where there is an Commission that

is independent of the political process, municipalities or regional governments determine

supply in most other jurisdictions, and taxi regulation is left to the local or regional

council. Consequently decisions are frequently based less on objective study than on

either lobbying by various interest groups, in particular the taxi industry, or on

Page 44

ideological stances. Jeffery Narten, former cab driver, in his Master’s thesis for the

Urban Studies program of Cleveland State University is blunt in his assessment of the

impact of ideology on the industry.

It has been fashionable, in some quarters of late, to champion the "deregulation"

of the taxi industry to spur competition and increase the number of cabs to

service the community. I will not cover that debate, except to note that the

clarion calls for "market freedom" represented by deregulation do not come from

those that have studied this industry, but from ideologues and political figures.

The former like to recite the "low entry levels" that deregulation would bring

about, thereby allowing the very poor to hang a shield on any car and ply the

community as a taxi. Atlanta’s experience in the 1970s tends to suggest that this

is an invitation to disaster. Most of the claims of lower fares, more taxis, and

better service are countered by a lack of evidence in those cities trying it, or by

the bedlam that followed which called forth re-regulation.

The Ontario Experience: Changing regulations in Toronto and Ottawa

Both Greater Toronto and Ottawa have undergone amalgamation in recent years, and as

a consequence have done extensive reviews of their respective taxi regulations and

industry. Both jurisdictions focused on service quality, driver standards, share/plate

value, supply and boundaries.

In looking at the issues and remedies imposed in these two cities, it is important to keep

in mind that in Ontario, it is the municipality, rather than an agency of the provincial

government that regulates taxi supply and standards. Both cities were therefore faced

with rationalizing a multiplicity of taxi bylaws already in place before amalgamation in

the previously independent municipalities. Furthermore, both cities had a very low

proportion of owner-operators within their respective industries. Licences were

accumulated primarily as investments by absentee owners, a situation that was

perceived as the cause of the generally inadequate standards for both drivers and

vehicles. While this report cannot provide an in-depth analysis of the various studies and

Page 45

changes to regulations in Toronto and Ottawa, there are several points that are worth

noting.

Both cities moved to improve the quality of vehicles and drivers. Age limits on vehicles

and mandatory driver’s training were instituted for new licensees. Perhaps the most

significant change, made first in Toronto and later adopted in Ottawa came in the

issuance of a new classification of licences. In order to foster quality and encourage new

entrants into the market, Toronto devised a new class of licences known as

“Ambassador” taxis.

Ambassador Taxis in Toronto

In July of 1999, Toronto initiated their “Ambassador” taxi classification.

As of that date,

only Ambassador taxicabs and wheelchair accessible vans can receive new licences,

although licences issued before July 1999 (known now as “Standard taxis) can still be

renewed, sold, leased or transferred. The Ambassador classification includes the

following requirements.

• Initial licence can only be issued for a vehicle that is not more than two

years old and that must be replaced when it is five years old.

Replacement vehicles cannot be more than one year old.

• Ambassador taxis can only be driven by their owner. Since drivers are

restricted to driving a maximum of 12 hours/day, this means these taxis

are only on the road for 12 hours. Nor can the owner lease the vehicle to

another driver.

• Ambassador licences are non-transferable. They cannot be sold or leased.

• All drivers must complete the Ambassador training course before they

receive their licences.

• All vehicles must contain a passengers’ Bill of Rights, an automatic receipt

dispenser, and either a camera or a GPS system.

• All drivers must read, write and speak English.

• Only individuals on Toronto’s “Driver’s List” are eligible to apply for an

Ambassador licence. Owners of Standard licences can apply to change

Page 46

their licence to an Ambassador licence, but no owner, company, or

shareholder in a company that owns a Standard licence, or has owned a

Standard licence within the past five years, can apply for a new

Ambassador licence.

Regulations for the newly designated “Accessible Taxi” (i.e. wheelchair accessible vans)

are similar, although there are three significant points of departure. Up to three

individuals, other than the owner, can be designated as the drivers of an Accessible taxi

as long as those designated have completed the Accessible Taxi Training Course.

Furthermore, licences for Accessible taxis can be sold. While a vehicle cannot be more

than two years old when presented for licensing, and cannot be replaced by a vehicle

that is more than one year old, licensed vehicles can stay on the road for seven years.

The City felt these measures were reasonable because of the considerable investment

required for one of these vehicles.

Ottawa’s Taxi Review

Ottawa’s amalgamation which includes 11 municipalities and districts is more recent

than Toronto’s having come into effect only at the beginning of 2001. It approached the

problem of rationalizing the various taxi bylaws by commissioning a review of the

industry led by the former Chair of the Ottawa Carlton Region, Andrew Haydon.

The

result, The Haydon Report, made a number of highly controversial recommendations.

Among them:

• Creation of an independent Taxi Commission, a non-political body, complete with

dedicated enforcement staff to oversee implementation of changes and

enforcement of new standards.

• Merging of all existing zones to one zone, encompassing all of the geographic

territory of the new city;

• Elimination of artificial restrictions on numbers of vehicle licences (plates) issued

by allowing entry to the industry of all applicants meeting high new standards of

driver qualifications, vehicle quality and safety.

Page 47

Haydon also argued against any compensation for the deflation of value for existing

licences, which at the time of his report, were estimated to be worth approximately

$100,000.

Reaction to the report by the taxi industry and, to some extent, by the public was

extremely negative and received widespread media attention. As a result of the

controversy, the City commissioned another study, this time by KPMG, which

recommended:

• Rejecting the proposed taxi commission

• Phasing in the elimination of boundaries

• Retaining control of taxi supply

The City adopted many of the KPMG recommendations including the phasing in of

boundary elimination. In order to solve the outstanding issue of easing the entry of new

licensees while retaining control of the supply of taxis, Ottawa adopted the Ambassador

system, described above, as implemented in Toronto.

Criteria determining supply in Toronto and Ottawa

As mentioned, no new Standard taxi licenses will be issued in Toronto. Its licensing

bylaw (Bylaw 574-2000) stipulates that a maximum of 100 Ambassador licences will be

issued in any given year. Because Toronto has a serious shortage of wheelchair

accessible vehicles, the bylaw also allows for the granting of 50 Accessible licences in

the year 2000 and an additional 25 in 2001. It goes further to state that any licences for

Accessible vehicles not taken through the normal application process will be issued to

qualified taxi brokerages. All drivers of Accessible vehicles must complete the Accessible

Taxicab Training Course. It should be noted that, unlike British Columbia, accessible

taxis in Toronto work through contracts between taxi brokers (i.e. dispatch services) and

the Toronto Transit Commission, in a manner similar to our Handi-Dart system. Thus

independent operators must come to an agreement with an established broker before

they can operate a wheelchair accessible taxi.

Page 48

Historically, Toronto used a statistical formula weighted for factors such as population,

transit ridership, and increases in airport and convention traffic as its criterion for issuing

new licences. In 1997, the City commissioned a study which found the old criterion to be

ineffective and proposed a new formula based on a number of factors including,

population, employment figures, leased retail space, consumer confidence, and

competition from other forms of private transportation services.

City Council did not

adopt the new formulation and is currently considering commissioning yet another

study.

In Ottawa the supply of taxis will be determined through a population ratio of 1 taxi to

every 668 residents. New licences will be allocated through a lottery system.

Page 49

Factors Affecting Taxi Supply and Availability

Supply

Supply can be regulated in two ways, either directly through restricting the number of

licences or plates issued, or indirectly through stringent vehicle and driver standards

combined with high licence fees. In British Columbia, the supply of taxicabs is controlled

through the issuing of licences and plates by the Motor Carrier Commission at the

provincial level and municipalities on the local level. Recent amendments to provincial

legislation abolished the ability of municipalities to issue licences to companies lacking a

MCC licence.

Municipal bylaws governing taxis within their jurisdiction range from none (there being

no distinction made between taxi companies and any other business seeking a municipal

licence) to extensive. Generally speaking, municipal bylaws focus on issues of safety,

liability and accountability. Larger municipalities also stipulate certain standards for

vehicle age, appearance, and driver skill and knowledge.

Usually an application for a municipal licence by a company already granted a licence or

additional plates by the Motor Carrier Commission will be routinely accepted. Some

municipalities in the Lower Mainland have population ratios that they may or may not

use as guidelines for increasing the number of taxis. Burnaby, for example, historically

maintained a ratio of 1 cab to every 1,500 citizens. Its present level of service is

considerably below that ratio, but the city is satisfied that current service is adequate.

Licence fees vary among municipalities. A sampling of licence fees from various

municipalities is detailed in Table 8. The City of Vancouver held an auction of municipal

licences in 1986 (preceding Expo) which garnered a substantial sum for the city. Surrey

recently held an auction of municipal licences, and New Westminster is considering

offering municipal licences through tender or auction. It is worth noting that licence fees

in other jurisdictions can be considerably higher than in the Lower Mainland. In Sydney,

Australian, for example, new licences cost $36,000 (AU).

Page 50

Table 8: Municipal Licence Fees in the Lower Mainland

Vancouver

$275.00

Richmond

$100.00 plus $91 per car

Burnaby

$354.00 new/ $198 renewal

New Westminster

$80.00

North Vancouver

$90.00 per car

Abbotsford

$115.00

District of Kent

$100.00

Surrey

$100.00 plus $25 per car

Availability

While the

supply

of taxicabs is controlled through the various licensing structures, the

availability

of taxis is subject to a great many other factors. The public’s perception of

supply is more likely to be influenced by availability than by actual supply. Factors

influencing availability include the time of day, day of the week, time of year, weather,

traffic and – in the case of people requiring wheelchair accessible vans – availability of

such vans in their communities.

Perceptions about the adequacy of supply are also influenced by the number of

alternate forms of transportation available in the community. If a community is well

served by public transit, shuttle buses, and courtesy cars, the demand for taxis is

considerably lessened.

Boundaries must also be figured into the calculations on supply. With boundary

restrictions in place, many taxis delivering a passenger to an area outside their

boundaries end up making an empty run back to their own zone. That results in many

wasted driver hours and a large number of taxis being unavailable for passenger pick-up

as well as higher operational costs with no attending revenue.

Page 51

Other jurisdictions have dealt with the boundary issue in various ways. Toronto chose to

retain its old taxi zones after amalgamation, while the newly amalgamated Ottawa is

moving toward a gradual elimination of boundaries. In New York City there are no

boundaries and taxis are allowed to operate across all five boroughs, however,

medallion cabs (i.e. cabs that are hailed on the street) operate almost exclusively in the

business districts of Manhattan.

While several municipalities, along with the Port of Vancouver and the various

organizations representing people with disabilities, would like to see boundaries

eliminated, there is sharp division within the industry itself.

Formulae and Ratios

Formulae to determine how many taxis are enough range from simple population ratios

to complex statistical calculations that take into consideration demographic and

economic factors as well as competitive forces. No matter how simple or complex the

formula, however, no one ever seems entirely satisfied that their method accurately

assesses the need for licences. Toronto’s struggle to find an appropriate formula is a

case in point.

Table 9: Taxi-Population Ratios in Major Metropolitan Areas

Municipality

Ratio

Municipality

Ratio

Halifax

1:338

London (UK)

1:374

Toronto

1:675

Stockholm

1:160

Calgary

1:554

New York

1:728

Montreal

1:314

Boston

1:367

Edmonton

1:575

Sydney (AU)

1:888

Vancouver

1:1,138

Auckland (NZ)

1:341

Canadian Average

1:714

US Average

1:814

Page 52

Population ratios vary widely from one location to another, although it is worth noting

that the Lower Mainland has a very low ratio compared to other North American

jurisdictions. Table 9 gives an overview of major Canadian cities along with other major

metropolitan centres around the world.

Share/Plate Values

Underlying any discussion of increased supply, either through an easing of restrictions or

through the elimination of boundaries, is the industry’s very real concern over protecting

their markets and therefore the value of their businesses. Generally speaking, all taxi

companies see the entry of new licensees into the market as a threat to their

competitive position. Companies located in Vancouver and represented by the

Vancouver Taxi Association, whose territory is the most lucrative in the region, see any

relaxation of boundaries as a threat to the value of their licences and/or shares.

While these strong vested interests must be factored in when considering the issue of

supply, maintaining plate values should not be the reason for adopting various

regulatory approaches. In fact, the very high estimates of share/plate values in the

Lower Mainland would suggest that supply has been over-restricted. High values for

shares or licences, not only restricts entry into the market, but adds a substantial

operating cost that is then passed on to the consumer. The Industry Commission of

Australia, in 1993, found that the high price of licences equalled 25% of the cost of a

fare.

In Ottawa, the debate around deregulation, focussed on a market value of

$100,000 for licences (i.e. two shares in Vancouver terms) which, in that region, was

deemed excessive.

Striking a balance between the need of existing companies for stability and a reasonable

rate of return on their investment, and the needs of the public for increased and

improved service has proved difficult in every jurisdiction that has attempted reform of

its industry whether they were dealing with an oversupply of taxis or an undersupply.

Page 53

Montreal, for example, deregulated supply in 1946 in response to consumer complaints,

and out of a desire to create jobs for returning veterans. This resulted in an increase

from 765 licences at the end of World War II, to 4,978 by 1952. To deal with the

oversupply, the city instituted a buy-back scheme for licences in 1985, Initially the price

negotiated with the industry was $10,000 per licence, but it wasn’t until a third set of

negotiations were completed and compensation rose to $30,000 per licence that the

scheme saw any real measure of success. The buy-back plan continued until November

of 1990 and resulted in a 25% reduction in the number of licences and increased the

value of remaining plates to approximately $80,000.

At the other extreme, New Zealand deregulated its taxi industry in 1989 without any

compensation to existing license holders. It should be noted, however, that deregulation

occurred there during a time of radical reform of the New Zealand economy. According

to Jason Soon, Assistant Editor of

Policy,

a journal published by the Centre for

Independent Studies, ten years after deregulation, the total number of companies

operating in Auckland has increased to 28; only 9 of those companies existed before

1989.

In Australia, where the debate over deregulation continues, the general consensus

among those studying the industry seems to favour compensation for existing licensees

if deregulation occurs. A report from the Australian Competition Commission

notes

that the current market value of licences in the Sydney area is well over $1 billion, and

sets the annual lease value of taxis in that same region at $75 million. An Australian

economics group rates a Sydney taxi licence as the third best investment in Australia –

after thoroughbred horses and wine.

In many areas where the supply of licences is very strictly controlled, a whole new

shadow industry evolves of unlicensed, unregulated cabs – called “gypsy cabs” in New

York and “bandit” cabs in California. New York, where a strong taxi lobby ensured that

no new licences were issued for over 50 years, is the best example of protective

regulation resulting in more competition rather than less.

In 1937, the number of

“medallion” (i.e. licensed cabs) in New York was frozen at 13,595. By the late forties

Page 54

that number had, through attrition, decreased to 11,787 and remained at that level until

1966. By 1950 a whole new industry of unlicensed cabs had developed and by 1996, it

was estimated that there were 30,000 gypsy cabs operating in the five boroughs of the

city. The City attempted to control the problem by licensing 14,000 gypsy cabs under a

Vehicle For Hire (VFH) regulation. They also tendered an additional 400 medallions for

sale in 1996-7, but the unregulated market continues to thrive. Current estimates of the

number of gypsy cabs in New York range from 14,000 to 30,000.

Los Angeles, where taxi companies are franchised by the city, also has a problem with

unlicensed cabs which, as in New York, outnumber licensed taxis. There are 2,303

licensed taxis in Los Angeles and an estimated 3,000 so-called bandit cabs,

In Santa

Ana County, which includes San Diego and runs to the Mexican border, police estimate

that there is one bandit cab for every square mile of the county.

The problem in

California is serious enough to be routinely highlighted in police and tourist bulletins.

In Canada the same problem is beginning to emerge. Toronto’s Lester B. Pearson

Airport is experiencing severe problems with unlicensed cars picking people up at the

airport. The drivers of these cars often send a helper into the parking garages, to arrival

gates and baggage areas to solicit passengers.

While some are ticketed and fined, the

fines aren’t sufficiently high to act as a deterrent, nor are there sufficient personnel

available to find and ticket all the cars.

Both Toronto and Ottawa have chosen to deal with the issue of balancing existing

licence values with the need for new services through the implementation of their

Ambassador taxi system. Standard taxis (those taxis licensed to operate before reforms

were introduced) continue to be leased, traded and sold. (Licence fees for standard

taxis, however, are considerably higher than those for Ambassador or Accessible taxis.)

Ian Redfearn, Acting Manager of Enforcement in Toronto’s Taxi Industry Unit, reports

that the market value of standard licences has dropped only marginally since the

implementation of the ambassador system. While it may be too early to measure the

long-term success of the Ambassador system, it does appear to accomplish its goal of

re-invigorating the system while protecting existing economic interests.

Page 55

Other Issues

Enforcement and Regulatory Process

While both of these issues are outside the scope of this review, we did hear a great deal

of feedback from the industry about both enforcement and regulatory issues.

Both taxi associations expressed serious reservations about the efficacy of the current

enforcement regime – especially around the enforcement of boundaries which they saw

as both sporadic and arbitrary. Both associations said that the lack of personnel to

uniformly enforce boundary restrictions led to some drivers regularly flouting the rules,

accepting the occasional ticket as part of the cost of doing business.

The City of Richmond had concerns about overlapping jurisdictions around vehicle safety

inspections which in its view was inefficient and confusing.

The representatives of at least two municipalities expressed the view that regulation

should be left with municipalities rather than a provincial body, and several questioned

the need for regulation at all.

Both taxi associations had serious reservations about the process whereby new

licences/plates were awarded. They felt it was both expensive and time-consuming,

whether one was an applicant or an objector. They also felt that the criteria used for

determining need, especially letters of support, were an easily manipulated and

ineffective measure of actual need.

Page 56

Options

Because there are so many factors affecting supply and availability, and because those

individual factors can be combined in so many different ways, we have grouped them

into three categories: supply, criteria, and boundaries. An option from any one of the

three categories can be combined with options from the other two in order to devise

new strategies and policy. A summary of options is presented in Table 10.

It is also important to point out that strengths and weaknesses often depend on the

point of view of the respondent. There are competing interests to be considered in the

design of any public policy, and the taxi industry is no exception. The public, various

levels of government and other private passenger services are likely to view any

regulatory regime as containing different strengths and/or weaknesses. Even within the

taxi industry itself, there is no agreement on contentious issues that affect a company’s

bottom line. For example, the elimination of boundaries would most assuredly be seen

as a weakness by Vancouver companies, who would face increased competition and a

shrinking market, and as a strength by those companies located outside of Vancouver

who would profit from entry into the Vancouver market.

Page 57

Table 10: Summary of Options

Supply

• Maintain the moratorium on all vehicles

• Maintain moratorium with the exception of wheelchair accessible

vehicles

• Continue the moratorium on new licences but grant additional plates

to existing companies.

• Lift the moratorium and resume the normal process for new plates

and licences.

• Give primary responsibility for determining supply to municipalities,

the Greater Vancouver Regional District, or another regional

authority

• Lift the moratorium but only issue a new class of non-transferable

licences with specific standards for driver training and experience

and vehicle age

Criteria

• Issue plates based on a set ratio of population to taxis

• Issue plates based on perceived need within communities as

expressed in the application process.

• Issue plates based on a formula that considers population,

competition, number of visitors, availability of public transit and

other factors.

Boundaries

• Retain existing boundaries

• Retain existing boundaries, but allow wheelchair accessible vehicles

to pick up and deliver passengers in any region

• Ease boundary restrictions at certain times of day and/or for certain

events.

• Phase in boundary elimination over a period of several years

• Eliminate all boundaries immediately

Page 58

Supply

1. Maintain the moratorium on new licences and plates; or maintain the

moratorium while making an exception for wheelchair accessible vehicles.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Only two of the municipalities surveyed,

Vancouver and Surrey, felt they needed

additional taxi services for the general

public. However nearly everyone

surveyed acknowledged the need for

more w/c accessible vehicles.

•

Maintaining the general moratorium

would ensure stability among existing

companies, while increasing plates for

w/c accessible vehicles would address a

need almost universally noted.

•

Both Vancouver and Surrey, the two

largest municipalities, feel they need

increased taxi services. The Port of

Vancouver also noted their need for

many more taxis during their busy

season.

•

Would certainly ensure a steady increase

in the market value of plates – already

the highest in the country.

2. Continue a moratorium on new licences, but grant additional plates to

existing companies where they can demonstrate need. Designate a certain

percentage of those new vehicles as wheelchair accessible vehicles.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Would ensure the stability of existing

companies.

•

Would motivate companies to either

increase the number of wheelchair

accessible vans or to add such vans if

they currently have none.

•

Would enhance service to consumers

who need wheelchair accessible vans.

•

Would make it impossible for new

companies to enter the market.

•

Would act as a disincentive for existing

companies to improve service standards,

especially those companies with a

monopoly in their markets.

•

Might result in accessible vans being used

primarily for the general population,

especially at times of high demand.

Page 59

3. Lift the moratorium and allow new applications for both licences and

certificates to go through the normal process.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Would open the market to new

companies, thereby increasing

competition and providing an incentive to

existing companies to improve service.

•

Could enhance service to the public.

•

Could provide an opportunity for either

new or existing companies to introduce

innovations in order to secure new nich

markets.

•

Might possibly bring the market value of

plates more into line with other major

metropolitan areas.

•

Might push marginal operations into

bankruptcy if additional applications were

approved.

•

Might destabilize other existing

companies and discourage innovation and

improvements in service quality if

additional applications were approved.

•

Existing companies could apply

immediately to increase plate/certificates

for their companies, thereby effectively

blocking new entrants into the market.

4. Initiate a process giving primary responsibility for supply to either the

municipalities, or to a regional body such as the Transit Authority or the

Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Likely to get a more accurate assessment

of need from municipal officials

knowledgeable about local conditions.

•

Allows local government to accept

responsibility for their own transportation

issues.

•

Could result in an oversupply of taxis in

some municipalities.

•

Could lead to conflicting and confusing

regulations among municipalities.

•

Would create extra work for already

heavily burdened municipal governments

who prefer to leave the question of

supply to the MCC.

•

Might be an abrogation of MCC

responsibility.

Page 60

5. Lift the moratorium but issue only a new class of licences, non-

transferrable and/or time limited with restrictive criteria including driver

training and experience, and vehicle age and condition.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Would increase supply without initial

impact on the stability and financial

viability of existing companies and their

shareholders.

•

Would allow companies some flexibility in

the efficient deployment of their vehicles.

•

Might, over the long-term, gradually

reduce the market value of plates to

something more closely approximating

values in other regions of the country.

•

Might allow new entrants into the market

who could otherwise never afford to buy

a plate or licence.

•

Would allow MCC to retain control of the

licence/plate.

•

New entrants would have to obtain a

dispatch service willing to dispatch their

car.

•

Increased enforcement would be

required.

•

Would have to have the cooperation of

the municipalities who also control

licensing.

•

Might encourage new operators to apply

for licences who lack an understanding of

the industry or the financial acumen to

operate successfully.

Page 61

Criteria

1. Issue plates based on a ratio of population to taxis.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Easy to calculate, no cost involved.

•

Easily understood by everyone

concerned.

•

Difficult to establish what that ratio

should be.

•

Doesn’t take into account other factors,

such as competing services that may

influence the actual need for additional

service.

•

Hasn’t necessarily been successful in

other jurisdictions.

2. Issue plates based on perceived need within communities as expressed in

the application process.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Gives stakeholder groups such as seniors,

people with disabilities, and others an

opportunity to comment on local service

issues.

•

Allows for impartial judgement based on

submissions from both the applicant and

objectors.

•

Provides stability within the industry.

•

Is expensive and time-consuming for all

concerned.

•

Is open to at least the perception of bias.

Whoever loses is likely to find the process

flawed.

•

Submissions, especially letters of support,

can be manipulated by the applicant.

Page 62

3. Issue plates based on a formula that considers population increase,

competition, number of visitors and availability of public transit.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Would probably give a more accurate

reading of actual demand than a simple

population ratio.

•

Would take into account the special

needs of certain venues and groups.

•

Very expensive to establish, verify and

adjust the various criteria.

•

Difficult to determine how to weigh the

various factors.

•

Would need to be adjusted frequently in

order to allow for changes in the factors

that establish demand.

•

Adjustments upward in supply could be

easily made, but way to decrease supply

when economic factors warrant.

•

No evidence that regions using this

method have fewer problems with supply

and demand than other regions.

Page 63

Boundaries

1. Retain boundaries of currently established zones.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Would protect the investment of

Vancouver companies who would have

the most to lose from an easing of

boundaries.

•

Would guarantee that less lucrative areas

would continue to have adequate service.

•

Would prevent an oversupply of taxis at

high-volume points such as hotels and

restaurants in the downtown core.

•

Industry and stakeholders understand the

current rules and system.

•

Taxis deadheading back to their own

territories are inefficient, cutting into the

driver’s ability to earn an income, as well

as contributing to traffic congestion and

pollution.

•

Could not compensate for shortages

during peak periods or for special events

by bringing in taxis from other areas.

•

Enforcement is inadequate, thereby

encouraging drivers to risk breaking the

rules.

•

Visitors to Vancouver unaware of the

rules are apt to consider empty taxis who

refuse to pick them up as bad service.

2. Allow wheelchair accessible vehicles to pick up and deliver passengers on

a dispatch basis in any region.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Increases the availability of wheelchair

accessible vehicles to those who need

them.

•

Compensates somewhat for the uneven

distribution of wheelchair accessible vans

among municipalities.

•

Gives taxi companies a financial incentive

to convert some part of their fleet to

wheelchair accessible vans.

•

Doesn’t address the issue of accessible

vans being used for transporting the

general public rather than specifically for

those people who need their specialized

services.

•

Enforcement would be difficult.

•

Might increase numbers of vehicles, but

wouldn’t necessarily guarantee better

service for people with disabilities.

Page 64

3. Phase in boundary elimination over a period of several years starting with

areas adjacent to Vancouver, e.g. eliminating the boundaries between

Vancouver and Burnaby, or Richmond and Vancouver.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Could ease supply problems through

more efficient deployment of vehicles.

•

Would allow companies time to plan and

rationalize their fleet size and quality.

•

Would minimize impact on plate values

for Vancouver companies.

•

Would move all companies and

municipalities toward a single standard of

driver and vehicle quality.

•

Might, to some extent destabilize

Vancouver companies and provoke strong

reaction from those companies.

•

Would require the cooperation of the

affected municipalities.

4. Eliminate all boundaries immediately.

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Allow drivers to operate more efficiently

with no deadheading.

•

Allow demand to control availability

rather than arbitrary zones designations.

•

Ease inadequacy of supply during peak

periods in Vancouver.

•

Encourage companies to compete on the

basis of superior service rather than on

the basis of territory.

•

Would eliminate the necessity of

enforcing boundary regulations, freeing

personnel to concentrate on areas of

standards and safety.

•

Would have an immediate impact on the

share value of Vancouver companies.

•

Could result in Vancouver companies

demanding compensation for the

deflation of their share values.

•

Could result in lengthy legal cases around

the issue of compensation. (Rulings on

such cases in other jurisdictions have had

mixed results.)

•

Might result in a glut of taxis in certain

high-volume areas, especially downtown

Vancouver, while suburban municipalities

experience a decrease in service.

Page 65

Choosing Among the Options

It is extremely difficult to know which, among the various options open to regulators of

the taxi industry, will lead to a stable, efficient and quality service for the public. As was

so amply demonstrated in the1980s, when so many jurisdictions moved to deregulate

the industry, anticipating all of the consequences of reform is difficult if not impossible.

Furthermore, reforming a system that already has strongly entrenched economic

interests adds significant political pressures to the process.

Complicating matters is the fact that no two jurisdictions regulate or even define their

taxi industry in quite the same way. Some make sharp distinctions among the various

modes of hired transportation. In New York, for example, a “medallion cab” is restricted

to picking up passengers hailing a taxi on the street, while “VFH cars” (vehicle for hire)

are restricted to dispatched trips or contracts with private firms. In Toronto, wheelchair

accessible vehicles operate under contract and are not part of the commercial taxi fleet.

Other jurisdictions are moving toward a single set of regulations for all forms of hired

passenger cars, including limousines, wheelchair accessible vehicles, vans, shuttles and

other niche market vehicles.

It is possible, however, to look at some of the lessons learned over the past twenty

years of experimentation, and make a broad assessment of some of the current

recommendations and implementation of new policies and procedures in other

jurisdictions in order to minimize mistakes and comprehend the range of possible

outcomes.

Generally speaking, in the first wave of reform two decades ago, many jurisdictions

moved to virtually complete deregulation of the industry, including restrictions on supply

and areas of operation. (It should be noted that most jurisdictions retained some control

over the licensing of drivers.) There is general agreement that the primary outcome of

deregulation was a dramatic increase in the number of taxis. This was true in every

case. Other outcomes were less consistent. In most deregulated jurisdictions, there was

Page 66

an increase in fares and a decrease in service standards. However in a few jurisdictions,

fares decreased, and, some would argue, service improved. In the long run, however,

deregulation proved problematic enough that most jurisdictions moved to re-regulate at

least some aspects of the industry.

We are currently in the midst of a second wave of reform. Having learned from the

experience of those who deregulated in the 1980s, regulators are attempting to strike a

balance – improving access and service without destabilizing the existing industry.

Most jurisdictions seem to be moving toward a new classification of taxis that have non-

transferable licences. This is seen as a way to encourage new entries into the business,

especially owner-operators, while at the same time minimizing the impact on existing

license holders. The Ambassador taxi classification now in place in both Toronto and

Ottawa is one such example. Other jurisdictions, notably Australia through its

Competition Commission, seem to be moving toward removing supply-based entry

restrictions, while increasing vehicle and driver standards as well as licence fees. The

Competition Commission does state that such reforms can not take place without

compensation to owners of existing licences.

Information on how other jurisdictions have dealt with the issue of boundaries is not as

readily available. However, as a result of amalgamation, both Ottawa and Toronto

looked at that issue, although they made different choices. Ottawa is gradually

eliminating boundaries, while Toronto chose to leave existing boundaries in place.

Because the structure and definition of the industry varies so much from place to place,

it will be ill-advised for any jurisdiction to import solutions without a close look at how

they would translate to local conditions.

For example, the new class of non-transferrable licences implemented in Toronto and

Ottawa – or for that matter, the unregulated industry in New Zealand – can work

smoothly because dispatch services in those jurisdictions are independent of the taxi

Page 67

owners. In the Lower Mainland, where dispatch services are an integral part of the taxi

company, it is difficult to see how new entrants would be dispatched.

The boundary issue is another case in point. Because of amalgamation, both Toronto

and Ottawa ultimately have only one municipality to consider. Despite that, Toronto

could not come to a consensus on the easing of boundaries, and even in the newly

amalgamated city of Ottawa, there are rural areas where boundaries are deemed

necessary and will remain in force. Boundaries in the Lower Mainland are a product not

only of conditions imposed by the MCC, but also licensing restrictions among

municipalities and districts who have their own set of priorities and interests – and

whose character may be primarily urban or primarily rural. Add to that the sharp division

on this issue within the taxi industry itself, it is difficult to see how to resolve this issue.

It is also clear that there is a general trend in other regions toward an expansion of the

taxi industry into new markets. Again, niche marketing would appear on the surface to

be advantageous to both the taxi industry and the consumer. However, taxis are defined

very differently in different regions. In British Columbia, they are generally defined as

five-passenger vehicles providing service at a metered rate. There are several other

passenger services that operate under different conditions of licensing. Any move to

expand the role and flexibility of the taxi industry would necessarily have an impact on

those other services and could only be undertaken with a clear understanding of the

overall implications for the entire passenger service industry.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the experience of other venues, it is that no

reform of the industry should be undertaken without careful assessment of local

conditions, continued dialogue with stakeholders and ongoing assessment of the results.

Page 68

Appendix A: Notice to Industry

March 5, 2001

Moratorium on Taxis in the Lower Mainland—Annual Review

On December 6, 1999, the MCC published its decision on the supply of taxis in

the Greater Vancouver Region. This decision continued the 1998 moratorium as

it applied to “taxicabs” and was made following a public inquiry into the matter. It

lifted the moratorium relating to other types of passenger transportation services.

The Commission undertook to review this decision annually.

The MCC has received some complaints relating to the supply of taxicabs in

Greater Vancouver. As well, some municipalities have indicated that the current

supply of taxicabs does not adequately meet their needs. Moreover, the

Commission is receiving more applications for services that are outside the

moratorium but will have an impact on commercial passenger vehicle service.

At the public hearing in September, 1999, licensed carriers were well

represented as were specific interest groups, such as persons with disabilities.

Other groups such as municipalities and tourism groups were not well

represented. These groups, however, have valuable perspectives on the

transportation issues in the Lower Mainland.

Over the next six months to a year, the Commission will be undertaking further

consultations with industry, stakeholders, municipalities and other agencies to

get a better understanding of perceptions about the supply of taxis in the lower

mainland and identifying factors that influence the supply of taxis in this area.

Decision:

The Motor Carrier Commission will undertake further consultations as outlined

above. The current moratorium will be maintained for the duration of the

consultation process.

Page 69

Appendix B: Terms of Reference

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REVIEW OF TAXI SUPPLY IN THE LOWER

MAINLAND PROJECT

Context

On October 5, 1998, the Motor Carrier Commission issued a notice that it would not

accept applications for licensing in the Greater Vancouver Region which would alter the

supply of taxis. This was to permit the Commission to inquire into the supply of taxis in

the region. The notice applied to all applications for passenger services which would

impact on taxi services. The Commission postponed a public hearing until the

completion of a taxi study, commissioned by the Minister of Transportation & Highways.

A public hearing into the supply of taxis was held in September, 1999 and on December

6, 1999, the MCC published its to continue the 1998 moratorium as it applied to

“taxicabs” as defined by the Commission. The moratorium relating to other types of

passenger transportation services was lifted.

In March 2001, the Commission issued a Notice to Industry indicating that it will be

undertaking consultations with industry, stakeholders, municipalities and other agencies

to get a better understanding of perceptions about the supply of taxis in the lower

mainland and identifying factors that influence the supply of taxis in this area. The

moratorium will be maintained for the duration of the consultation process.

Commission Mandate

The legislative framework and regulatory requirements pertaining to the Commission

and its related duties and powers are established under the Motor Carrier Act and

regulations.

Section 39(1) of the Act vests the Commission with the duty to:

♦ promote adequate and efficient service to the public at just and reasonable charges;

♦ promote safety on the public highways; and

♦ foster sound economic conditions in the transportation industry

The Commission has recently consolidated its policies into a Policies and Procedures

Manual.

An application must be made to the Motor Carrier Commission by a party who wants to

obtain or alter a motor carrier authority. The Commission must consider all applications

in terms of its mandate and its authority under the Act. Generally, the Commission

requires that applicants establish that there is a need for the service.

The issue with regard to the supply of taxis in the lower Mainland is whether there are

any external methods, formulas or statistics that may be used to assist the Commission

in determining need. This would only be one aspect of the decision making process. The

Commission would have to consider each application in terms of its mandate and the

quality and fitness of the applicant.

Page 70

KEY PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Literature/Internet Review

MCC staff to provide some background reading on the issue of supply generally. Some

additional background work via the internet may be warranted; however, the focal point

of the review is the consultation as outlined below.

II.

Consultation

(a)

Consult with various stakeholders to determine their perception with regard to the

supply of taxis in the Lower Mainland. Is the supply adequate, too high, too low?

Can they provide any evidence to support their conclusions? What could be the

impact of increasing the supply? What criteria should the MCC use to determine

the need for taxis? What would be the effect of increasing the supply on current

providers? Are some places/areas served well but others not? Are all groups well

served by the current supply of taxis? What objective factors or indices should be

used to assess the supply of taxis?

Consultation should be undertaken with the following individuals or groups:

→ appropriate tourism representatives, such as Tourist Bureaus, Tourist Boards,

etc.),

→ representatives of the taxi industry, such as the Vancouver Taxi Association and

the BC Taxi Association

→ consumer group representatives, such as the Seniors’ Advisory Council, the BC

Coalition of People with Disabilities

→ the Vancouver Airport Authority

→ municipalities (Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, etc)

→ MCC staff

→ relevant government ministries or agencies such as the Office for Disability

Issues and ICBC

(b)

In consultation with MCC staff, undertake a targeted telephone or e-mail

consultation with other jurisdictions to review methodologies they use and assess

their strengths and weaknesses.

Page 71

III

Report

Prepare a report for the Commission which summarizes the results of the consultations,

presents options, including strengths and weakness. This report may be shared with

stakeholders or posted on the MCC web site.

PROCESS

The Project Team will be under contract to the Commission and will report to the

Director & Secretary.

There will also be a stakeholder Reference Group that will meet with the Project Team

periodically to provide advice on the project.

Prior to undertaking consultations, the team will develop an outline or proposed action

plan that will be presented to the Director & Secretary as well as the Reference Group.

Page 72

Appendix C: Questionnaires

Questions for municipalities, districts

Name of municipality or district __________________________________________

Department responsible for taxi cabs _________________________________

Contact person and title ______________________________________________

Contact phone number ______________________________________

Do you feel that that, in general, the supply of taxi cabs in your community is adequate

to demand? ____________________________________________________________

What criteria are used in your municipality to determine the number of cabs allowed in

your community? What is the basis for using these criteria? _____________________

______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Do you feel the criteria used are adequate to maintain an appropriate level of service? If

not, why not? _________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Is the number of cabs regulated by bylaw? (If so, please attach a copy of the pertinent

bylaw). ____________________________________________________________

If there is a bylaw, does the current supply match the bylaw? _________________

__________________________________________________________________

What is your present fee structure for taxi cabs? (i.e., taxi license/municipal license)

___________________________________________________________________

Are there particular geographical areas of your community, or groups within your

community who are under-served by current taxi availability? Are there areas without

public transit in your community? _________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

If the Motor Carrier Commission decided to grant more licences in your community,

what would be a reasonable number? _____________________________________

Are there other issues relating to the supply of taxis in your municipality that you wish

to comment upon?

__________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Page 73

Questions for Taxi Companies

Name of company _______________________________________________

Contact person/phone number _____________________________________

How many taxis are dispatched by your company? (Including corporately owned,

shareholder owned/ leased.) _____________________________________________

Do you feel there are an appropriate number of taxis operating in your area to offer

adequate service to the public? Too few or too many? Why? If too few, what would be

an appropriate number?

_______________________________________________________________________

Are all of your cabs in service full time? Do some operate only during peak demand?

Please explain. _________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Do you keep statistics on the number of rides per taxi per day? If so, could you give us

an average of those figures?

______________________________________________________________________

Can you tell us the approximate wait time for a taxi from your company during peak

periods? _______________________________________________________________

Are there particular neighbourhoods or groups (e.g. students/seniors) in your area of

service that are currently being underserved? _______________________________

Who are your primary clientele? ___________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

What is your primary competition?__________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Are your drivers required to take special training, i.e. Taxi Host, defensive driving

courses, etc.? ___________________________________________________________

Are there other issues relating to the supply of taxis in your service area that you wish

to comment upon?

__________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Page 74

Questions for other stakeholders (Hotels/Tourism/Port/Community Groups)

Name of company/organization: ___________________________________________

Contact person/title: ____________________________________________________

Contact phone number: _________________________________________________

What geographic area are you concerned with? ______________________________

Are there a sufficient number of taxis available to adequately serve the needs of your

business/customers/members? ______________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Is public transit normally available to your customers/members? _________________

What criteria are used by your company/members/customers to determine who gets

your taxicab business? __________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Are you satisfied with the level of service you receive for your customers/members?

_______________________________________________________________________

Are average wait times for your customers/members reasonable? If not, please explain.

_______________________________________________________________________

Are there particular issues around the supply of taxis that are especially pertinent to

your members/customers? Please explain. ____________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Page 75

Appendix D: List of Respondents

Industry

Municipalities and Districts

Vancouver Taxi Association

John Palis

Mohinder Mann

City of Vancouver

Pam Hayes

Paul Teichroeb

BC Taxi Association

Mohan Kang

City of New Westminster

Keith Coueffin

Yellow Cabs

John Palis

City of North Vancouver

David Owens

Bonny’s Taxi

George Lapthorne

Jasminder Mattu

City of Richmond

M. J. Freeman

Joanna Hikida

Royal City Taxi

Hafiz R. Khan

City of Surrey

J. E. Sherstone

Black Top Cabs

Kanwal Sahota

Gurdeep Virk

District of Maple Ridge

Brock McDonald

Delta Sunshine Taxi

Ken Robinson

Maheshinder Sidhu

City of Port Moody

Susan Binns

Guildford Cabs

D.R. Guilbault

City of Port Coquitlam

Jenny Feher

Pacific Cabs

Tim Land

District of West Vancouver

Rob Metcalfe

Northshore Taxi

Subag Singh

City of Delta

Ron Dickinson

Coquitlam Taxi Group

Mike Loree

City of Burnaby

Craig Collif

Surdell-Kennedy Taxi

Parm Bains

Ted Allen

Page 76

Other Stakeholders

B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities

Pam Horton

Vancouver International Airport Authority

Sev Araujo

Sat Gill

BC Chamber of Commerce

John R. Winter

Vancouver Port Authority

Doug Moore

Captain Michael P. Cormier

North Shore Disability Resource Centre

John Neumann

Vancouver Hotels Association

Rolf D. Osterwalder

Seniors Advisory Council

Marjorie Weir

BC Transit

Steve Segal

Vancouver Doorman’s Association

Mark Brailey

Translink

Stephen Rees

City of Ottawa

Sharon

Special thanks to Ian Redfearn of the City of Toronto and Susan Jones of the City of

Ottawa.

Page 77

Bibliography

Articles, studies, reviews and submissions

Arninge, Pepe. “Before and After Deregulation: Stockholm, Sweden – 10 Years

Experience” (Call-Sign Journal, London UK, February 1998).

Australian Competition Commission. “Regulation of the Taxi Industry” (Australian

Competition Commission, December 1999)

Avants, Sandi, Gilbert, Gorman, and Lupro, Barbara. “Peer Review of Seattle Taxicab

Regulation” (City of Seattle, 1996).

Bergantino, Angela S., Longobardi, Ernesto. “The deregulatory process in the taxi

industry: a critical appraisal” (Società italiana di economia pubblica, October 2000)

Carr, David., “Putting Customers First: Taxicab Reform in the Greater Toronto Area”

(Consumer Policy Institute, Toronto Ontario) March 1997.

Cervero, Robert. “Fostering Commercial Transit: Alternatives in Greater Los Angles,”

(Reason Public Policy Institute, No. 146, September 1992).

Dempsey, Paul Stephen. “Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Re-regulation: The

Paradox of Market Failure”

Transportation Law Journal

, Vol. 24, No. 1, (University of

Denver, College of Law) Summer 1996.

Dergusoff, Cheryl. “National Recommendations for Wheelchair Accessible Taxis,” (The

B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities n.d.).

Economic Planning Group of Canada. “Review of the Predictor Model used for the

Metropolitan Toronto Taxicab Industry: Final Report” (City of Toronto, March 1997).

Ergas, Henry, “Meter Ticking on Taxi Reform: BRW Outfront Opinion” (Network

Economics Consulting Group Pty Ltd. June 200l).

Page 78

Faber, Oscar. “Review of Taxi and Hackney Carriage Service in the Dublin Area: Interim

Report, (Goodbody Economic Consultants, Dublin, December 1997)

Haydon, Andrew. “Taxi Regulatory Reform, (Ottawa Taxi Project Team, Ottawa

Transition Board, City of Ottawa: September 2000)

Kang, Choong, , “Taxi Deregulation: International Comparison”, Ph.D. Dissertation,

(Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, August 1998).

Lanyon, Stan, “A Study of the Taxi Industry in British Columbia,” (Ministry of

Transportation and Highways, Victoria, BC, 15 June 1999).

Lupro, Barbara. “Taxicab Permit Survey,” (The Regulator: International Association of

Transport Regulators, Volume 8, Issue 2, April 2001).

Narten, Jeffery D. “The Cleveland Taxi Market,” (College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland

State University March1998).

Motor Carrier Commission,

Submissions to the Inquiry Regarding the Supply of Taxis in

Licence Districts 14, 14A, 15)

September 1999

______Annual Report of the Motor Carrier Commission, Government of British Columbia,

2001

Mussallem, George. “Taxicab Review – Vancouver Region” (Motor Carrier Commission,

British Columbia, May 1989).

Ministere des Transports du Quebec, “Reform of Taxi Transportation: For Better Service

Quality,” Consultation paper, Province of Quebec, July 1999)

Page 79

Minnan-Wong, Denzil. “Report to Review the Toronto Taxi Industry,” Toronto Task Force

to Review the Taxi Industry, (City of Toronto, October 1998).

Newsom, Gavin. “Final Report: Mayor’s Taxi Task Force” (City of San Francisco, April

1998)

Points of View Research & Consulting, Ltd., “Burnaby Heights Community Shuttle

Survey,” (TransLink, Vancouver, February 2001).

Regional Development, Policy and Planning Department, Greater Vancouver Regional

District. “2000 Annual Report: Livable Region Strategic Plan”, (Greater Vancouver

Regional District, December 2000).

Radbone, Ian. “The Leasing of Taxi Licences – A Discussion Paper” (Transport Systems

Centre, University of South Australia) February 1998

Schaller, Bruce. “New York City Taxicab Fact Book, 3

Edition,” (NYC Taxi and Limousine

Commission, May 1994

Schaller, Bruce and Gilbert, Gorman. “Factors of Production in a Regulated Industry:

Improving the Proficiency of NYC Taxicab Drivers,” (

Transportation Quarterly,

Vol. 49,

No. 4, Fall 1995)

______ “Villain or Bogeyman? New York’s Taxi Medallion System”, (

Transportation

Quarterly,

Vol. 50, No. 1, Winter 1996)

______ “Fixing New York City Taxi Service,” (

Transportation Quarterly

, Vol. 50, No. 2,

Spring 1996).

Soon, Jason. “Taxi!! Reinvigorating the Competition in the Taxi Market”, (

Policy,

Centre

for Independent Studies Winter 1999)

Page 80

Strategic Planning Department, TransLink. “TransLink Strategic Transportation Plan,

2000 – 2005,” (Translink, Vancouver, April 2000)

______”Strategic Transportation Plan: Appendices,” (Translink, Vancouver, April 2000)

Trudel, Michael. “The Fundamentals of Taxi Regulation and the Quebec Experience”

(paper presented to the 7

Congress of the European Taxi Confederation, Donostia –

San Sebastian, Spain) February 1995

______”The Future of Transportation by Taxi” (paper presented at the first European

conference of the International Association of Transportation Regulators) Strasbourg,

France, October 1996.

______ “The Taxi as Transit Mode, The City of Rimouski Demonstration with the

Taxibus”, IATR Annual Conference, Miami, November 3, 1998

TSL Transformation Solutions Ltd. “The British Columbia Taxi Industry: Review of

Regulatory Challenges and Options” September 1997

West, Virginia. “Executive Summary of the Report of the Task Force to Review the Taxi

Industry,” (Toronto Commission of Urban Planning and Development Services, October

1998).

Williams, Roy; Mattice, Neal. “The Emancipation of the Taxi industry in Oshawa,”

(Political Action Committee, Retail Wholesale Canada Canadian Service Sector, United

Steel Workers of America, Local 1668). August 1999

Statutes, Bylaws

B.C. Government Statutes.

Motor Carrier Act

, RSBC 1996 c315

Page 81

_____

Vancouver Charter

, SBC 1953 c55

City of Richmond, Bylaw No. 6900, “Vehicle for Hire Regulation” November 1, 1998

______ Bylaw No. 690l, “Business Licencing Requirements” November 23, 1998

______Bylaw No. 7148, “Business Regulation” November 14, 2000

City of Toronto: Municipal Licensing & Standards, Taxi Industry Unit “Extract of Bylaw

20-85, Schedule 8, Taxicab & Livery Bylaw

______Bylaw 245-1999 Amending Bylaw 20-85, May 1999

______Bylaw 574-2000, Schedules 7-8. “Respecting the licensing, regulating and

governing of trades, businesses and occupations in the City of Toronto,” August 2000.

City of Vancouver, Vehicles for Hire Bylaw No. 6066, March 15, 2001

Corporation of the District of Burnaby, Bylaw No. 3102, “A BYLAW for licensing and

regulating the owners and drivers of vehicles for hire in the Municipality of Burnaby”,

January 1951

Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, Bylaw No. 2815-1980, “A Bylaw to regulate

Taxis and Taxi Drivers within the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge” August,

1980

Corporation of the District of West Vancouver, “Vehicles for Hire Bylaw No. 3034 (1982),

Amendment Bylaws No. 3322 & 4143” June 1982

Minneapolis Taxicab Ordinance, Chapter 341, Taxicabs, Articles I – VII, Department of

Regulatory Services, Division of Licenses & Consumer Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota,

revised 2000

Page 82

Online Sources

Allen, Margaret. “D/FW May Get Tough on Cabbies” Dallas Business Journal, October 2,

1998 (http://dallas.bcentral.com/dallas/stories/1998/10/05/story1.html)

“Brief History of Taxi Issues in Seattle,” Seattle Public Access Network [date n.d.]

(http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/seattle/leg/drago/taxihist.htm.).

City of Ottawa, Bylaw Services, “Taxi Licensing Issues, Part I, 2001”.

(http://city.ottawa.on.ca/city_services/bylaws/1_4_1_en.shtml.).

______”Taxi Licensing Issues, Part II, 2001”. available at

(http://city.ottawa.on.ca/city_services/bylaws/1_4_1_1_en.shtml).

Prime Time Shuttle, Press Release, “Prime Time Wins LAX Bid” Feb 2001, available at

(http://www.primetimeshuttle.com/PTwinsLAXbid.htm).

Smythe, Terry. “Taxicab Deregulation: Futility or Blessing,” Taxi-L mailing list at

(http://www.taxi-l.org/index.html)

Sutherland, Abraham, “Diary”. Slate OnLine Magazine, Microsoft Network, July 19, 2001.

(http://slate.msn.com/diary/01-07-16/diary.asp?iMsg=4).

Taxi Advisory Group, “Executive Summary and Recommendations, Part I,” (Seattle

Public Access Network, [n.d.]) www.ci.seattle.wa.us/seattle/leg/drago/taxirec1.htm

______ “Executive Summary and Recommendations, Part II,” (Seattle Public Access

Network [n.d.]) www.ci.seattle.wa.us/seattle/leg/drago/taxirec2.htm

Transport Advisory Committee. “Daily Information Bulletin,” (City of Hong Kong, July 28,

1998) (http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/199807/28/0728167.htm).

Page 83

Newspaper articles, press releases

Adam, Mohammed, “Team Urges Open Market for Cabs, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa On, 12

September 2000.

Adam, Mohammed, “Taxi Reform Puts Cabbies on Defence” Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa On,

19 Sep 2000.

Bisson, James “City of Mississauga Public Vehicle Licensing Unit: Re: 1999 and 2000 in

review”. City of Mississauga, Corporate Services Department, January 2001

Communications & Marketing Department, “City Council Approves Taxi and Limousine

Licensing – Newer cars, better drivers, accessible cab service for Ottawa”, City of Ottawa

press release, 12 July 2001

Fragomeni, Carmela “Rough ride for cab industry” The Hamilton Spectator, April 24,

2001

Gillies, Kevin, “Locals debate cab report”, North Shore News, June 21, 1999

Haydon, Andrew, “Taxi Reform Gives Us All Choice,” Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa ON, 26

September 2000

Hughes, Graham, “Angry Cabbies Block Elgin Street” Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa ON 27 Sep

2000

LeRoux, Jacki, Cabbies Drive to Fight Board’s Regulation Changes,” Ottawa Sun, Ottawa

ON, 26 September 2000

Page 84

LeRoux, Jacki “Cabbies Eye Walkout” Ottawa Sun, Ottawa On, 27 Sep 2000

Media Relations, Office of the Chief of Police “Bandit Taxi Cabs,” Los Angeles Police

Department Press Release, “ June 12, 2001-08-31

Mena, Jennifer. “Task Force Crackdown on ‘Bandit Cabs’ Urged, Los Angeles Times, 2

July 2001

Ottawa Citizen, “The Meter Finally Ticks on Taxi Reform” Editorial, Ottawa Citizen, 14

September 2000

Pignataro, Anthony, “The Taxi Driver” Orange County Weekly, Vol. 6, No. 24, February

16-22, 2001.

Trottier, Tom “Let’s license cabs for the benefit of riders”, Ottawa Citizen, 20 June 2001

Wheeler, Carolynne, “Taxi reform hinges on province: Queen’s Park must help with

special legislation: Chiarelli” Ottawa Citizen, 20 June 2001

Wheeler, Carolynne, “Cabbies Threaten Strike Over ‘Slavery’ System, Ottawa Citizen,

June 26, 2001

Endnotes

Haydon, Andrew etal,

Taxi Industry Reform: Report for the Ottawa Transition Board

, September

11, 2000, p 11

The deregulatory process in the taxi industry: A critical appraisal, Bergantino, A., Longobardi, E.

Soceita italiana di economia pubblica,. October 2000

Kang, Choong-Ho,

Taxi Deregulation: International Comparison

, Ph.D. Dissertation, Institute for

Transport Studies, University of Leeds, 1998 p. 15

Page 85

Lanyon, Stan,

A Study of the Taxi Industry in British Columbia

, Ministry of Transportation and

Highways, 1999, p 82-83. GVTA refers to the Greater Vancouver Transit Authority.

Figures for total number of plates are current. Figures for wheelchair accessible vans are from

June 2000.

Motor Carrier Department, Province of British Columbia

Regulation of the Taxi Industry, Australian Competition Commission, Government of Australia,

December, 1999

Review of Taxi and Hackney Carriage Service in the Dublin Area, Interim Report, Oscar Faber.

December 1997

Translink Trip Survey 1999

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1724,

Brief to the Motor Carrier Commission regarding

proposed Increases in the Size of the Taxi Fleet in the Greater Vancouver Regional District,

September 9, 1999

Lanyon, p 77

BC Coalition of People with Disabilities,

Submission to Motor Carrier Commission Taxi Inquiry,

September 9, 1999

Vince Miele, BC Paraplegic Association, letter to Motor Carrier Commission, September 3, 1999

Trudel, Michel,

The Fundamentals of Taxi Regulation and the Quebec Experience

, proceedings,

Congress of the European Taxi Confederation, September 1996

Motor Carrier Act, Section 39(1), Government of British Columbia

Trudel,

Fundementals of Taxi Regulation

Arninge, Pepe,

Before and After Deregulation: Stockholm, Sweden – 10 Years Experience,

Call

Sign Journal, February 1988

Dempsey, Paul Stephen,

Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation, & Re-regulation: The paradox

of Market Failure,

Transportation Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1 Summer 1996

Soon, Jason;

Taxi!! Reinvigorating the Competition in the Taxi Market

Narten, Jeffery D.,

The Cleveland Taxi Market,

Master’s Thesis, Urban Studies, Cleveland State

University, March 1998

City of Toronto, Bylaw 574-2000

, Schedules 7-8, “Respecting the licensing, regulating and

governing of trades, businesses and occupations in the City of Toronto,

August 2000

Haydon etal,

Taxi Industry Reform

City of Ottawa, Bylaw Services: Taxi Licensing Issues, June 25, 2001

Page 86

Economic Planning Group of Canada,

Review of the predictor Model used for the Metropolitan

Toronto Taxicab industry: Final Report

, March 1997

Soon, Jason;

Taxi!! Reinvigorating the Competition in the Taxi Market

Soon, Jason;

Taxi!! Reinvigorating the Competition in the Taxi Market

Australian Competition Commission;

Regulation of the Taxi Industry,

Government of Australia,

December 1999

Ergas, Henry, Network Economics Consulting Group Pty Ltd, NECG news commentary, BRW

Outfront Opinion, June 2001

Schaller, Bruce; Gilbert, Gorman,

Fixing New York City Taxi Service

, Transportation Quarterly,

Vol. 50, No. 2, Spring 1996

Total number of licensed vehicles in NY City as of 2000.

Sutherland, Abraham,

Diary,

Slate Magazine, Microsoft Networks [http://www.slate.com], July

16, 2001

Mena, Jennifer,

Task Force Crackdown on ‘Bandit Cabs’ Urged,

Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2001

Personal interview, Ian Redfearn, Acting Manager, Enforcement Taxi Industry Unit, City of

Toronto