Hawthorne, J P
Sinclair Knight Merz (Europe)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This paper sets out to consider a wide range of issues concerned with the
ambiguous status of taxis and PHVs on the private-public transport spectrum.
This is a very broad area, and research has identified more material than can
be included in a paper of this length. However, the role of taxis in airport
surface access illustrates many of the themes common to taxi operation in
other situations; the paper concentrates on this.
This paper initially considers taxis in relation to private car use, and draws out
possible definitions of taxis as public or private transport. It then sets in
context the value of modal shift from private cars to taxis at a national and
local level.
Using survey data from London, some inferences are drawn regarding taxi
activity when not engaged. Practical policy regarding taxi use is then
illustrated by examining the surface access strategies of a number of UK
airports.
Finally, the paper draws conclusions, and suggests further areas for
consideration.
1.3 Definitions
Within the UK there are two main types of licensed vehicle which may
commonly be referred to as taxis:
• Hackney carriages
o Can be hired anywhere within the licensing area without pre
booking, e.g. from ranks or hailed on street. Can also be pre-
booked if required.
• Private Hire Vehicles
o Can only be pre-booked, by telephone/internet or at the
operator’s office. Cannot ply for hire on the street or use ranks.
A common factor running through many of these benefits is that the car driver
is in control of the journey, whereas the use of other forms of transport implies
some surrender of control to the service provider.
However, it can also be argued that remaining in control of the journey also
brings responsibilities:
Thus the benefits of using a private car are balanced with a set of
responsibilities, and the trade off between these benefits and responsibilities
can affect the choice between car and public transport.
Let us therefore consider how taxis fit into this analysis. Compared with the
benefits of car travel, taxis can offer broadly similar benefits: Yet using taxis
transfers many of the responsibilities using a car to the taxi operator and/or
taxi driver. Thus taxis can offer many (or even most) of the benefits of using a
private car with the advantage that the taxi driver also assumes responsibility
for route selection through to the passenger’s ultimate destination. Indeed, in
situations where the traveller is unfamiliar with the local roads, traffic, or the
Let us start by considering the differences between car use as driver and
passenger. In practice there are three main non-commercial categories as
follows:
• Car as driver
• Car as passenger – same journey as driver
• “Kiss and ride” (Car as passenger – driver as chauffeur)
In all cases below we will consider the journey as a means to an end, rather
than an end in itself.
• For car as driver, the main objective is to get from the origin to the
destination as effectively as possible, within a wider set of time and cost
• For a passenger making the same, or a similar, journey as the driver, the
objectives will be as above if the passengers are part of a group. In a “car
pool” situation, there may be some additional distance travelled by the
driver to pick up (or set down) the additional passengers, but the overall
journey is also for the benefit of the driver.
• But for kiss and ride, the specific journey is purely for the benefit of the
passenger(s) and not the driver. In broader terms, there may still be
benefits to the driver, for example in availability of the vehicle for
subsequent journey, or as an element of trip chaining. Or there may be
benefits to the passenger which can be transferred to or shared with the
driver, such as the avoidance of parking costs at the destination. Indeed,
because the “unproductive” distance for the driver will always exceed (and
may even be double) the “productive” distance for the passenger, it could
be argued that there must be some form of benefit to the driver, even if it is
in the form of goodwill, friendship, respect, etc.
It can be argued that the kiss and ride category above generates the most
vehicle km per journey km and is therefore the least efficient form of private
car use. It could also be argued that it has most in common with taxi
operation. However, there are other factors which affect the overall efficiency
of taxi operation.
For a taxi driver, when hired the specific journey objective is the same as for
car as driver. If the journey is metered the driver will seek to minimise the
actual cost incurred against what can be recovered in meter charges; for non-
metered journeys the driver (or the PHV booking office) will seek to agree a
fare which gives an acceptable margin above the anticipated costs.
Depending on the destination of the journey, the taxi driver may have to wait
some time for another hiring, and/or incur empty running to the next pick-up,
nearest rank, or in cruising. In the worst case, if the drop off is beyond the
boundaries within which a taxi driver is permitted to ply for hire (or within
which a PHV may reasonably expect a booking), the driver may have no
option but to make an empty journey at least as far as the boundary.
For metered journeys, the tariff will thus include some recompense for empty
running and/or waiting time between hires. For negotiated fares, the driver (or
the PHV booking office) will seek to agree a fare which will include suitable
recompense for these factors. However, in situations where the use of a taxi
offers an opportunity for the passenger(s) to avoid additional costs at the
destination (e.g. parking charges), there may be scope where fares are
negotiated for drivers to seek to recover a share of the “savings” made by the
Thus although there remains an overall incentive for taxi drivers to minimise
empty running and/or waiting time, the actual levels tolerated may be higher if
there is scope to pass on the costs to passengers.
There are two key objectives where modal shift may potentially offer benefits,
but these have a different emphasis at national and local levels. These are:
This implication is also based on the assumption that the taxi journey is a
direct replacement of the equivalent car journey. If the availability of taxis for
part of the journey influences the decision to switch the mode used for the
majority of the journey to another form of public transport, then the overall
saving, for example in road vehicle kms, could be much greater.
Thus the benefits or disbenefits of mode shift from private car to taxi are by no
means clear cut.
Taken at a national level the main emphasis on mode shift from private cars
to taxis would have to be based on reduction in vehicle numbers. In practice,
there are already financial incentives which can be recognised by car owners
(or potential owners) who are primarily seeking convenience. Avoidance of
the “standing costs” (depreciation, licensing, insurance, maintenance, etc) on
a low usage vehicle can cover the cost of a lot of taxi journeys (and short-term
hire when necessary)!
This logic can also be applied when considering the incremental costs and
benefits of additional cars in an existing car-owning household.
Particularly within the urban context, the higher proportion of loaded journeys
per vehicle which can be achieved by taxis can offer significant advantages in
requirements for parking spaces. Where on-street hailing is common, this can
also reduce the pressure on kerb space which might otherwise be required for
parking of private cars or ranking of taxis.
Looking wider still, it can be argues that there are further factors which should
be taken into account when comparing taxis with private cars, for example,
Where taxis are fitted with meters, these are regularly inspected by the local
licensing authorities. However, this inspection is solely to ensure that fares
are calculated accurately and in accordance with the current tariff – no data is
collected regarding the pattern of use or details of the fares actually charged.
Drivers and operators are free to arrange patterns of working to their own
benefit and requirements.
However, the Public Carriage Office (PCO) in London now conducts regular
Diary Surveys, the most recent of which was in 2006. This provides a useful
insight into the pattern of taxi operation in London. Three types of taxi/PHV
are considered:
• Green taxi badge – permitted to ply for hire across the whole of Greater
London
• Yellow taxi badge – permitted to ply for hire in one of nine suburban
sectors around London
• PHV badge – permitted pick up pre-booked passengers across the
whole of Greater London
Only Green taxi badge holders can ply for hire in central London or at
Heathrow.
• Taxi drivers are engaged (i.e. carrying a fare) for around half their shift,
a lower proportion compared with 2003 (50% v 57%). However
disengaged time prior to first fare was collected in the 2006 survey, but
not in the earlier 2003 survey.
• The proportion of engaged time was much higher for Green (all
London) taxi badge holders (52%) than Yellow (suburban, 35%).
• On average, PHV drivers are engaged for less than half (44%) of their
shift, a significant decrease compared with 2003 (57% engaged time).
• Just under two in three of all taxi drivers (64%) work regularly from taxi
ranks although the proportion is much higher amongst Yellow
(suburban) badge holders (87% v 61%)
• For PHV drivers, the main activity during the disengaged time was
empty running (34%) followed by waiting elsewhere (27%) and waiting
in the office (25%).
• Two in three taxi and PHV journeys carry just one passenger. Multi-
occupancy journeys are more evident amongst journeys made for
leisure and during the weekend night time bands.
• Although Green taxi badge holders have more engaged time than
Yellow badge holders, more of their disengaged time is spent cruising.
• Yellow (suburban) taxi badge holders have less engaged time, but
spend more of their disengaged time on ranks.
• Because PHV drivers cannot ply for hire, most loaded journeys have a
matching empty journey. Because there is no scope for cruising, the
remainder of periods of disengaged time is typically spent waiting (in
the office or elsewhere)
The paper includes some relevant comments on the role of taxis and the
definition of public transport. The authors note that at one airport:
Of the airports considered, this has one of the highest levels of private hire
and taxi use at any UK Airport (27%), and the Manchester Ground Transport
Plan has a particularly well-developed policy towards taxis. The Plan notes
that
“Passenger access is still dominated by private car drop off and taxi. In
2005, these modes accounted for 60% of passenger movements. Taxis
and private car pick up and drop off generate four vehicle trips per
return air trip. This is in contrast to two trips when passengers park at
the Airport.”
“Despite the obvious benefits that taxis bring to users, there are issues that
follow from such a high level of use
• As private hire taxis have to be pre-booked, most taxi journeys are
made on a one-way basis, with the taxi either leaving or entering the
Airport empty. This inevitably generates twice the number of vehicle
trips than if the same journey was made in a car that was parked on
the site. Conversely, taxis may carry more passengers than a private
car.
• The high level of private hire taxi use puts added pressure, and
increases congestion on our forecourts.
• Fly parking on local residential roads around the Airport, and on
commercial premises such as the petrol stations while drivers wait for
the passengers, is increasing.”
The plan sets out a hierarchy of preferred travel choices, which places parking
on site above taxi.
With only some 15% of passengers using taxis, Birmingham Airport’s profile is
somewhat different to that of Manchester or Heathrow. However, the
approach in the Surface Access Strategy encompasses some of the some of
the thinking set out in the “Strategies and Targets” paper noted in section 5.2.
“In terms of passengers, off-site car parks are now included as public
transport, in order to reflect the fact that these passengers arrive in a
bus, thus reducing local congestion.”
This indicates a narrow focus on activity within the airport perimeter, however
there is a concession that “these trips will continue to be identified separately
in the more detailed figures”.
In common with the other airports with broadly similar taxi shares,
Birmingham Airport is keen to emphasis that it remains committed to
developing taxi facilities:
“The biggest deterrent to car use is the cost of car parking. This leads
to above average use of taxis, private hire vehicles and set-down and
pick-up at airports, compared to other land uses. As these modes
5.6 Heathrow
It goes on to estimate that 70% of CO2 emission from surface access modes
are generated by “Kiss and fly”, and 4% by taxis. Thus one of the stated ‘New
targets and objectives’ is to:
As with Birmingham, this objective is carried through into the car parking
strategy, where:
“The overall objective … is to ensure that the parking facilities are used
as efficiently as possible. This objective is consistent with our approach
to sustainable development, which recognises the need to provide
parking spaces for passengers wishing to park and fly. Failure to do so
would result in an increase in kiss and fly, with four road trips being
made by car or taxi rather than two. We aim to reduce the present level
of kiss and fly; it should be noted that one potential route is to increase
the amount of long-term parking available to air passengers.”
However, there is some recognition of the value in reducing road journey kms
outside the airport boundaries. The strategy notes that the development of
Crossrail to provide a link to Canary Wharf could reduce demand for cross-
London taxi journeys. This presumably includes journeys to Paddington to
catch the Heathrow Express.
With 39% of surface access by taxi, PHV or limousine London City Airport is
unusual among the airports in regarding taxis as public transport – though this
5.5 Gatwick
The Gatwick Surface Access Strategy 2000 – 2008 was the subject of a paper
presented to the European Transport Conference in 2004 by Roger Jones of
West Sussex County Council entitled “An innovative surface access strategy
for a major UK Airport”.
Whilst that paper was primarily concerned with innovations in partnership and
delivery, there is evidence that other airports have sought to match the
standards set by the original Gatwick Surface Access Strategy.
The current strategy was published in 2007 and one of the three main
objectives is to:
“Reduce the rate of growth of trips by private car and taxi to and from
the airport by encouraging greater use of public transport”
And that in the context of the increasing number of early morning departures
by low-cost operators
“At those hours there aren’t many public transport options, meaning
driving or getting a taxi are the only practical ways to get to the airport.”
Thus the main objective of the Surface Access Strategy is to increase the
public transport share of surface access from a current level of 33% to 35%.
5.9 Luton
At Luton, the taxi share of 12% is similar to Stansted. The Luton Surface
Access Strategy is positive about the role of taxis;
However, the Strategy notes that Luton Airport is considering the potential for
taxi sharing.
Interestingly, the strategy also notes that Kiss and fly at Luton is declining;
6. CONCLUSIONS
Within the confines of this paper, there are many areas which it has not been
possible to cover. Even within the specific context of airport access, there is
not space to consider issues including permits and charges, and the
restriction of operators allowed to pick up.