Cornwall Council Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hackney carriage zone February 2019

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone i

Executive Summary This Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hackney carriage zone has been undertaken on behalf of Cornwall Council following the guidance of the April 2010 DfT Best Practice Guidance document, and all relevant case history in regard to unmet demand. This Executive Summary draws together key points from the main report that are needed to allow Cornwall Council’s Miscellaneous Licensing Committee to determine from the facts presented their current position in regard to the policy of limiting hackney carriage vehicle licences according to Section 16 of the 1985 Transport Act. It is a summary of the main report which follows and should not be relied upon solely to justify any decisions of a committee but must be read in conjunction with the full report below.

The Restormel zone has seen a marginal decrease in rank usage since the last survey. As before, Newquay and St Austell are different in the nature of their hackney carriage operations with the former seeing mainly night demand and the latter daytime demand. Newquay retains the higher proportion of active hackney carriage vehicles arising from the more disparate demand in St Austell.

Both the private rail station ranks in the two main centres provide a service beyond to rail passengers. Across the zone, hackney carriages need to add bookings or contracts to their operations to make a living. Whilst some hackney carriages do not service ranks, most do as the fares chargeable are better than available in the more competitive private hire market. There is a clear willingness by passengers to go to ranks and wait for a vehicle to arrive, even if this implies a short wait in some cases.

At the present time there is no unmet demand that is significant in terms of Section 16 of the 1985 Transport Act in the Restormel hackney carriage zone of Cornwall. The current limit policy, and level of vehicle numbers, can both be retained and these decisions supported. The only health warning is that, with the exponential nature of the index, that limited interim testing of key rank performance might be necessary in a two year, rather than a three year time frame.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone ii

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone iii

Contents Executive Summary ...... i

Contents ...... iii

1 General introduction and background ...... 1

2 Local background and context ...... 7

3 Patent demand measurement (rank surveys) 13

4 General public views ...... 23

5 Key stakeholder consultation ...... 27

6 Trade stakeholder views ...... 31

7 Evaluation of unmet demand and its significance 35

8 Summary, synthesis and study conclusions39

9 Recommendations ...... 45

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 1

1 General introduction and background Cornwall Council is responsible for the licensing of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles operating within the Council area and is the licensing authority for this complete area. Further details of the local application of Section 16 of the 1985 Transport Act with regard to limiting hackney carriage vehicle numbers is provided in further Chapters of this report. Hackney carriage vehicle licences are the only part of licensing where such a stipulation occurs and there is no legal means by which either private hire vehicle numbers, private hire or hackney carriage driver numbers, or the number of private hire operators can be limited.

This review of current policy is based on the Best Practice Guidance produced by the Department for Transport in April 2010 (BPG). It seeks to provide information to the licensing authority to meet section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 “that the grant of a hackney carriage vehicle licence may be refused if, but only if, the licensing authority is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages within its local area, which is unmet.” This terminology is typically shortened to “no SUD”.

Current hackney carriage, private hire and operator licensing is undertaken within the legal frameworks first set by the Town Polices Clause Act 1847 (TPCA), amended and supplemented by various following legislation including the Transport Act 1985, Section 16 in regard to hackney carriage vehicle limits, and by the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 with reference to private hire vehicles and operations. This latter Act saw application of regulation to the then growing private hire sector which had not been previously part of the TPCA. Many of the aspects of these laws have been tested and refined by other more recent legislation and more importantly through case law.

Beyond legislation, the experience of the person in the street tends to see both hackney carriage and private hire vehicles both as ‘taxis’ – a term we will try for the sake of clarity to use only in its generic sense within the report. We will use the term ‘licensed vehicle’ to refer to both hackney carriage and private hire.

The legislation around licensed vehicles and their drivers has been the subject of many attempts at review. The limiting of hackney carriage vehicle numbers has been a particular concern as it is often considered to be a restrictive practice and against natural economic trends. The current BPG in fact says “most local licensing authorities do not impose quantity restrictions, the Department regards that as best practice”.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 2

The three most recent reviews were by the Office of Fair Trading in 2003, through the production of the BPG in 2010, and the Law Commission review which published its results in 2014. None of these resulted in any material change to the legislation involved in licensing.

During September 2018 the All-Party Parliamentary Group on taxis produced its long-awaited Final Report. There was a generally accepted call for revision to taxi licensing legislation and practice, including encouragement for local authorities to move towards some of the practical suggestions made within the Report. However, the Report has no legislative backing and the key conclusion was that the Government needed to act firstly to revise the 2010 BPG but then to move to revisions to primary legislation as soon as practicable. Despite some opposition from members of the group, the right to retain limits on hackney carriage vehicle numbers was supported, with many also supporting adding a tool which would allow private hire numbers to be limited where appropriate, given reasonable explanation of the expected public interest gains.

Other groups have provided comments giving their views about licensing matters but the upshot remains no change in legislation from that already stated above.

With respect to the principal subject of this survey, local authorities retain the right to restrict the number of hackney carriage vehicle licenses. The Law Commission conclusion included retention of the power to limit hackney carriage vehicle numbers but utilizing a public interest test determined by the Secretary of State. It also suggested the three- year horizon also be used for rank reviews and accessibility reviews. However, there is currently no expected date either for publication of the Government response to the Law Commission, nor indeed any plans for revisions to legislation.

A more recent restriction, often applied to areas where there is no ‘quantity’ control felt to exist per-se, is that of ‘quality control’. This is often a pseudonym for a restriction that any new hackney carriage vehicle licence must be for a wheel chair accessible vehicle, of various kinds as determined locally. In many places this implies a restricted number of saloon style hackney carriage licences are available, which often are given ‘grandfather’ rights to remain as saloon style.

Within this quality restriction, there are various levels of strength of the types of vehicles allowed. The tightest restriction, now only retained by a few authorities only allows ‘London’ style wheel chair accessible vehicles, restricted to those with a 25-foot turning circle, and at the present time principally the LTI Tx, the Mercedes Vito special edition with steerable rear axle, and the Metrocab (no longer produced).

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 3

Others allow a wider range of van style conversions in their wheel chair accessible fleet, whilst some go as far as also allowing rear-loading conversions. Given the additional price of these vehicles, this often implies a restriction on entry to the hackney carriage trade.

Some authorities do not allow vehicles which appear to be hackney carriage, i.e. mainly the London style vehicles, to be within the private hire fleet, whilst others do allow wheel chair vehicles. The most usual method of distinguishing between hackney carriages and private hire is a ‘Taxi’ roof sign on the vehicle, although again some areas do allow roof signs on private hire as long as they do not say ‘Taxi’, some turn those signs at right angles, whilst others apply liveries, mainly to hackney carriage fleets, but sometimes also to private hire fleets.

After introduction of the 1985 Transport Act, Leeds University Institute for Transport Studies developed a tool by which unmet demand could be evaluated and a determination made if this was significant or not. The tool was taken forward and developed as more studies were undertaken. Over time this ‘index of significance of unmet demand’ (ISUD) became accepted as an industry standard tool to be used for this purpose. Some revisions have been made following the few but specific court cases where various parties have challenged the policy of retaining a limit.

Some of the application has differed between Scottish and English authority’s. This is mainly due to some court cases in Scotland taking interpretation of the duty of the licensing authority further than is usual in England and Wales, requiring current knowledge of the status of unmet demand at all times, rather than just at the snap-shot taken every three years. However, the three year survey horizon has become generally accepted given the advice of the BPG and most locations that review regularly do within that timescale.

The DfT asked in writing in 2004 for all licensing authorities with quantity restrictions to review them, publish their justification by March 2005, and then review at least every three years since then. In due course, this led to a summary of the government guidance which was last updated in England and Wales in 2010 (but more recently in Scotland).

The BPG in 2010 also provided additional suggestions of how these surveys should be undertaken, albeit in general but fairly extensive terms. A key encouragement within the BPG is that “an interval of three years is commonly regarded as the maximum reasonable period between surveys”. BPG suggests key points in consideration are passenger waiting times at ranks, for street hailings and telephone bookings, latent and peaked demand, wide consultation and publication of “all the evidence gathered”.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 4

The most recent changes in legislation regarding licensed vehicles have been enactment of the parts of the Equality Act related to guidance dogs (sections 168 to 171, enacted in October 2010), the two clauses of the Deregulation Act which were successful in proceeding, relating to length of period each license covers and to allowing operators to transfer work across borders (enacted in October 2015), and most recently enactment of Sections 165 and 167 of the Equality Act, albeit on a permissive basis (see below).

In November 2016, the DfT undertook a consultation regarding enacting Sections 167 and 165 of the Equality Act. These allow for all vehicles capable of carrying a wheel chair to be placed on a list by the local council (section 167). Any driver using a vehicle on this list then has a duty under section 165 to:

- Carry the passenger while in the wheel chair - Not make any additional charge for doing so - If the passenger chooses to sit in a passenger seat to carry the wheel chair - To take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the passenger is carried in safety and reasonable comfort - To give the passenger such mobility assistance as is reasonably required

This was enacted from April 2017. There remains no confirmation of any timetable for instigating either the remainder of the Equality Act or the Law Commission recommendations, or for the update of the BPG.

In respect to case law impinging on unmet demand, the two most recent cases were in 1987 and 2002. The first case (R v Great Yarmouth) concluded authorities must consider the view of significant unmet demand as a whole, not condescending to detailed consideration of the position in every limited area, i.e. to consider significance of unmet demand over the area as a whole.

R v Castle Point considered the issue of latent, or preferably termed, suppressed demand consideration. This clarified that this element relates only to the element which is measurable. Measurable suppressed demand includes inappropriately met demand (taken by private hire vehicles in situations legally hackney carriage opportunities) or those forced to use less satisfactory methods to get home (principally walking, i.e. those observed to walk away from rank locations).

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 5

In general, industry standards suggest (but specifically do not mandate in any way) that the determination of conclusions about significance of unmet demand should take into account the practicability of improving the standard of service through the increase of supply of vehicles. It is also felt important to have consistent treatment of authorities as well as for the same authority over time, although apart from the general guidance of the BPG there is no clear stipulations as to what this means in reality, and certainly no mandatory nor significant court guidance in this regard.

The conclusions of the All-Party Parliamentary Group considering issues regarding hackney carriage and private hire licensing that are considered to be current and critical have just been published. As is usual in a diverse industry, other formal and informal groups continue to suggest potential changes to licensing that might be applied – but none of these, however strongly presented, have any legal weight and must be taken fully in context. This includes various changes arising from need to consider pollution and air quality issues although some elements of this will legally apply, but at a much higher level than specific licensing legislation, which may imply clashes with established legislation and more so present practice.

At the present time, the Welsh devolved government has opted to test some of the proposals of the Law Commission for application directly to Wales from around 2022. This leaves English licensing remaining as the only part of the United Kingdom under the original sets of legislation.

In conclusion, the present legislation in England sees public fare-paying passenger carrying vehicles firstly split by passenger capacity. All vehicles able to carry nine or more passengers are dealt with under national public service vehicle licensing. Local licensing authorities only have jurisdiction over vehicles carrying eight or less passengers. Further, the jurisdiction focusses on the vehicles, drivers and operators but rarely extends to the physical infrastructure these use (principally ranks).

The vehicles are split between hackney carriages which are alone able to wait at ranks or pick up people in the streets without a booking, and private hire who can only be used with a booking made through an operator. If any passenger uses a private hire vehicle without such a properly made booking, they are not generally considered to be insured for their journey.

Drivers can either be split between ability to drive either hackney carriage or private hire, or be ‘dual’, allowed to drive either kind of vehicle. Whilst a private hire driver can only take bookings via an operator, with the ‘triple- lock’ applying that the vehicle, driver and operator must all be with the same authority, a hackney carriage driver can accept bookings on-street or by phone without the same stipulation required for private hire.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 6

Recent legislation needing clarification has some operators believing they can use vehicles from any authority as long as they are legally licensed as private hire. At first, under the ‘Stockton’ case, this was hackney carriages operating as private hire in other areas (cross-border hiring). More recently, under the Deregulation Act, private hire companies are able to subcontract bookings to other companies in other areas if they are unable to fulfil their booking, but the interpretation of this has become quite wide.

The ‘triple lock’ licensing rule has also become accepted. A vehicle, driver and operator must all be under the same licensing authority to provide full protection to the passenger. However, it is also accepted that a customer can call any private hire company anywhere to provide their transport although many would not realise that if there was an issue it would be hard for a local authority to follow this up unless the triple lock was in place by the vehicle used and was for the area the customer contacted licensing.

Further, introduction of recent methods of obtaining vehicles, principally using ‘apps’ on mobile phones have also led to confusion as to how ‘apps’ usage sits with present legislation.

All these matters can impact on hackney carriage services, their usage, and therefore on unmet demand and its significance.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 7

2 Local background and context Key dates for this Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hackney carriage zone for Cornwall Council are:

- appointed Licensed Vehicle Surveys and Assessment (LVSA) on 4th December 2017 - in accordance with our proposal of November 2017 - as confirmed during the inception meeting for the survey held on 20th December 2017 - this survey was carried out between December 2017 and November 2018 - On street pedestrian survey work occurred in March and May 2018 - the main video rank observations occurred in June 2018 but with supplementary tests undertaken to cover seasonal variation as described in full in the rank section - Licensed vehicle driver opinions and operating practices were canvassed during the first two months of 2018 - Key stakeholders were consulted throughout the period of the survey - A draft of this Final Report was reviewed by the client during late November 2018 - and reported to the appropriate Council committee in February 2019.

The Cornwall Council area Cornwall became a unitary authority on 1 April 2009. It was formed from six former District / Borough councils which created six taxi zones within the new unitary authority, with boundaries that of the former authorities which remain effectively the Transport Act 1985 licensing authorities for each zone. For the purpose of licensing private hire, the zones were amalgamated and private hire vehicles and drivers are licensed for the entire Cornwall authority area. However, from a hackney carriage point of view all six zones remain with the main differentiation being different fares and in three cases a policy of limiting hackney carriage vehicle numbers under Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985. The plan below shows the licensing areas.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 8

- Key: 1 – Penwith (limited) 2 - Kerrier 3 - Carrick (limited) 4 – Restormel (limited) 5 - Caradon 6 - North Cornwall

In terms of population centres with ranks in the three zones with limits on hackney carriage vehicle numbers, Penwith includes Penzance, Hayle and St Ives; Carrick covers Truro, Falmouth and Perranporth whilst Restormel includes Newquay and St Austell.

Whilst all six zones have separate hackney carriage plate colours and separate hackney carriage fares, private hire vehicles are licensed for the whole of Cornwall and have no geographic restrictions on where they can operate. With respect to driver licences, all private hire drivers are able to drive in any part of Cornwall, whilst hackney carriage, and the hackney carriage element of any dual driver licence, are restricted to driving only in the zone which they request at time of application. This means that disaggregation by zone is only really possible for hackney carriage vehicle numbers in the present statistical breakdowns.

By drawing together published statistics from both the Department for Transport (D) and the National Private Hire Association (N), supplemented by private information from the licensing authority records (C), recent trends in vehicle, driver and operator numbers can be observed. The detailed numbers supporting the picture below are provided in Appendix 1. Due to the comparative size, the operator figures are shown in the second picture.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 9

The DfT data sources also only provide information for all Cornwall beyond the date when the County became Unitary. Only the National Private Hire data source retained separate areas, although even these now have less information to draw upon given the steady focus on retention and collection of only that information really needed to manage the present operation.

The first graph below provides the information regarding vehicles and drivers for the whole of Cornwall to set the individual zones in context.

Cornwall, all zones - licensed vehicles and drivers 3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1165 1144 1064 1049 1039 1024 956 943 1000 909 924 902 902 929 846 792 732 680 597 628 600 626 554 563 577 589 586 513 507 543 518 522 467 460 460 433 424 500 379 409 395 379 411 407 332 333 355 361 359 357 271

0 1994D 1997D 1999D 2001D 2004D 2005D 2007D 2009D 2010N 2011D 2012N 2013D 2014N 2014C 2015D 2017D 2018C

hcv phv lv total hcd phd dd total d

Licensing Statistics from 1994 to date

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 10

Whilst there are some doubts, which are very hard to confirm either way, regarding some of the national information, the overall picture for Cornwall sees a general growth in the level of hackney carriages with a peak in 2013, after which there has been a steady decline. This picture is almost mirrored, albeit at a slightly lower, but converging level by private hire vehicle numbers. The 2017 peak in their growth has now been reversed, possibly related to action regarding some vehicles that were operating often widely out of the area.

Interestingly driver numbers on all fronts across Cornwall have seen steady growth since 2009, although hackney carriage specific numbers have recently fallen against that general trend.

Information is also available from these sources to show how the level of wheel chair accessible vehicles (WAV) has varied. It must be noted that in most cases the values for the private hire side tend to be much more approximate than those on the hackney carriage side, as there is no option to mandate for private hire being wheel chair accessible. In some areas, to strengthen the ability of the public to differentiate between the two parts of the licensed vehicle trade, licensing authorities might not allow any WAV in the private hire fleet at all. For Cornwall, the level of information available is restricted and no graph is provided.

Cornwall Council undertakes regular review of its policy to limit hackney carriage vehicle numbers in line with the BPG for the three presently limited zones. The previous surveys were in 2014 and 2011 for each zone.

Background Council policy Cornwall as a unitary authority has highway powers for all roads in the County apart from the A30/A38 trunk routes which are maintained by the Highways Agency. This was always the case even before the setting up of the unitary authority, although this did mean that the previous licensing authorities were not the highway authority and therefore did not have power over the rank provision in their areas. In the present situation, the licensing authority is also the highway authority albeit there being a statutory duty on the licensing section to list / appoint ranks whilst the highway section undertakes the physical application and maintenance of these.

The third Local Transport Plan – “Connecting Cornwall 2030” is a key building block of the Future Cornwall 2010-2030 and Local Development Framework Core Strategy. The first implementation plan runs from 2011 to 2015, and the second from 2015 to 2019.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 11

In setting the context of transport, the main LTP3 document identifies there are two large bus companies, one with 200 vehicles and another with 100. Around 7 further independent companies have a total of 60 vehicles between them. There are a further 20 community buses and 250 buses only used for school travel. Since publication of that document, there have been changes within this structure, and there has also been expansion of bus services with various elements of investment provided.

Despite this, there remains high use of the private car. However, two thirds of households either have no car or a single car. Further, there is evidence people are struggling to keep the cars available on the road. This puts a large number of people dependent on public transport.

Concerns about pollution mean the LTP records an encouragement for taxi operators to invest in low carbon emitting and low air pollutant vehicles but does not explain how this is supported in detail. The council will work with and encourage tourism providers to promote Cornwall as a car-free destination. Further, transport integration between modes will be improved including taxi interchanges at railway stations as relevant.

Policy 13, p46, states the aim to develop taxi share schemes with fixed fare routes to popular destinations (no further detail). This is further encouraged (p80) as part of creative solutions to get people around where it is not appropriate or possible to develop bus services.

Policy 26, p74, states the council will work within the Community Safety Partnership in supporting opportunities to introduce taxi marshal services in town centres to help people to get home safely. The aim is for a number of highly visible marshals at night and weekends to help people find taxis, keep taxis in orderly queues and report misbehaviour by any party.

Finally, the LTP states the council will “work with …taxi operators to provide training to drivers on passengers’ needs and safety” (Objective 16, p84).

The 2011-2015 plan delivered a programme of transport improvements of some £44m. Significant inputs included funding to improve the Night Riviera Sleeper service including relocating its maintenance base to Penzance. All three limited hackney carriage zones benefit from calls from this service. There are aims to improve access routes to Falmouth, Newquay and Truro. Penzance and Truro stations will both see significant improvements. On a less positive note towards taxi service, both the previous and current implementation plans seek improvement to strategic bus services to encourage shift to high capacity public transport.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 12

Our initial site visit to the area in December 2017 noted many new bus routes in place within the restricted zones. Trade representatives informed us this had in some cases reduced demand for hackney carriage services on routes where such improvements had occurred. However, pressures on funding have also meant a focus on high capacity corridors with potential for reduction to services away from these routes.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 13

3 Patent demand measurement (rank surveys) Appendix 2 provides a list of ranks at the time of this current survey.

Our methodology involves a current review both in advance of submitting our proposal to undertake this Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hackney carriage zone and at the study inception meeting, together with site visits where considered necessary. This provides a valid and appropriate sample of rank coverage which is important to feed the numeric evaluation of the level of unmet demand, and its significance (see discussion in Chapter 7). The detailed specification of the hours included in the sample is provided in Appendix 3.

The brief for this survey encouraged more extensive cover of rank operation than in 2014, as well as a review of how demand varied throughout a full calendar year. For this reason, the survey covers the period from December 2017 through to the end of November 2018. Variation through the year was covered in two ways. Firstly, after inception discussion was held with local trade representatives to understand how they thought trade varied through the year. Their discussions are provided in the trade consultation chapter below. Secondly, the two busiest council ranks from the surveys undertaken across the three regulated zones were proposed for specific 48-hour surveys during March, August and September as well as during the main rank observation programme in June. Further discussion of the seasonal results occurs below and in the synthesis section of the Report.

A very similar detailed rank observation schedule was used to that undertaken in 2014. However, since that time, developments of methodology have allowed us to undertake ‘quick watch’ summaries of quieter ranks to provide significantly more comfort about the operation of these ranks at very moderate additional cost. These allowed production of broader based estimates of demand. It also allowed wider observation of how specific ranks operated to provide clear understanding for future rank development, and to clarify exactly how the hackney carriage rank-based operations operate.

Rank usage overview The rank observations undertaken were analysed to provide an estimate of the typical weekly demand at each rank in the zone. The Table below shows the summary of results for Restormel by rank, also comparing present flows to those obtained in each previous survey for which information is available.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 14

Rank per week, per week, per week, per week, Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers 2018 survey 2018 survey 2014 survey 2011 Fore St, Newquay 1384 (57%) 1362 (52%) 2436 (61%) St Austell Station - private 414 (17%) 322 (13%) Not surveyed Duke St, St Austell 301 (12%) 78 (3%) 466 (12%) Trebarwith Crescent, Newquay 165 (7%) 149 (6%) 486 (12%) Newquay Station - private 83 (3%) 273 (11%) Not surveyed Cliff Road, Newquay 46 (2%) 223 (9%) 100 (2%) Gover Lane, Newquay 19 (1%) Not surveyed Not surveyed High Cross St, St Austell 3 (0.0%) 0 (0%) 531 (13%) Manor Road, Newquay 2 (0.0%) 144 (6%) Not surveyed Total 2,417 2,551 4,019 Growth from previous -5% -37% n/a

The table above shows firstly that 2018 demand is around 5% less than that observed in 2014. Demand is still significantly lower than that observed in the 2011 survey, which mainly relates to significant reductions in night life in both main towns since 2011.

However, the actual reduction may be higher than this since our wider observations identified more demand at Duke Street than had been estimated from the surveys in 2014, and also found that the loss of demand at High Cross Street was actually a move of this demand to the Station rank.

The most noticeable item in the table above is that Fore Street, Newquay appears to have retained a very similar level of usage to 2014 whilst increasing its market share. The increase at St Austell station mainly relates to observation of the night demand from the club which at some point moved from High Cross Street to the station location. Duke Street, St Austell has also seen growth from 2014 although this is now back at the level and share it had in 2011, so this may also be a result of the wider observation.

The private rank at Newquay Station has lost demand and share since 2014 but it is not immediately clear why this should be, and we believe our current estimate is a much stronger one being based on three full days of observation. However, our observations also found this rank receives much less from the rail source than might be expected with many arrivals either being met by friends or family or by people walking to their destination.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 15

Trebarwith Crescent in Newquay has seen a marginal increase in patronage and share, although again there is no clear reason for this. Cliff Road and Manor Road on the other hand have both seen significant reductions, although both are generally very low usage ranks in any event.

Overall, the results suggest a possibly more stable situation in the Restormel zone in terms of rank usage, although overall usage remains very low.

Overall, Newquay provides 70% of the rank-based observable demand in the zone, with St Austell seeing just 30%. Part of this relates to the different nature of the two towns, with a wide spread of ranks picking up more of the disparate demand for Newquay, whilst there has been a lot more non-central development in St Austell, such that a lot of licensed vehicle activity is now made by telephone bookings to key shopping locations which do not have formal ranks.

Profile of surveyed rank usage To further set the overall demand in context, the graph below was produced. This is based on the main rank surveys undertaken in June and compares demand in total with that by rank over the full survey period covered. With the use of the ‘quick watch’ information, this graph is comprehensive in cover and provides a true reflection of all observable rank demand over that period.

Restormel Passenger Flows

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1012 1518 21 0 3 6 Thurs 9 12 15 18 21 Fri 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Sat 21 0 3 6 Sun

R New Bus Stn R St A New Cr St R New Gover Ln R New Cliff Rd R New Stn R New Treb Cres R St A Duke St R St A Stn P R New Fore St R Total

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 16

The overall profile of demand grows from weekdays through Friday to the Saturday. The level of night demand on Fridays and Saturdays is much higher than that on the Thursday, with the Saturday night – Sunday morning peak very marked. Night demand on all three nights is strongly determined by flows at Newquay Fore Street, with some addition on the two nights the club is open from its impact on St Austell private station rank. During the daytime, Duke Street St Austell is a key location for relatively steady demand, with its level growing from Thursday through Friday to Saturday.

Night demand clearly dominates, and itself is determined very strongly by when key locations are open. The weekday flows are made up from several locations, although at weekends even more locations contribute, with most ranks active more on Saturdays than other days. This only adds to the peakiness of demand and has clearly led a large number of hackney carriages towards the telephone booking sector for survival.

Despite the above comments, a review of the profile of rank-based demand shows few hours through the 70-hour period without any flow at any rank, although the average hourly passenger level is just 21 for the surveyed hours. With an average occupancy of 1.6 per vehicle this suggests just 13 vehicle movements are needed per hour – very low.

The peak flow is 140 passengers, in the 02:00 hour on the Sunday morning. The early Saturday morning peak was at the same time, but was just 66 passengers, and the area only sees two hours in the whole surveyed period with 76 or more passengers across the ranks in any hour. The maximum passenger flow at any single rank is 94, at Newquay in the peak hour. These are not high flow levels at all. Further consideration is given in the synthesis chapter.

Individual rank considerations St Austell There are three formal ranks within St Austell.

The rail station rank requires a supplementary permit from the rail operator. However, there is no restriction on other vehicles picking up or setting down within the relevant other parts of the forecourt. Our observations found that quite a few passengers for the hackney carriages actually came from the railway station access road rather than from the station, with others coming from the nearby bus station. Most importantly, this location is the principal point where people can get either hackney carriage or private hire bookings after a night out, with nearly all patrons from the club walking up to the station rank. While we did observe some private hire collection of passengers, a lot of booked trips were clearly undertaken by the hackney carriage fleet.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 17

However, the late-night service to those using the nearby club was provided by a larger mix of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles, with distinction between the two sometimes quite difficult such that some of the observed ‘rank’ demand here may actually be booked private hire trips.

There is a council provided rank located in Duke Street. This has six bays although their arrangement means vehicles are at right angles to the footway so needing to reverse on or off from the rank. The section of road is restricted to buses and taxis only. Observations found that the rank was mainly used in mornings, with lower usage in afternoons and no usage once the local shops were closed. There were also quite a number of set-downs opposite the rank as well as some cases where vehicles waited at the rank, were then called off to a telephone booking, some of which picked up just immediately away from the rank. Usage of this rank was kept strictly to hackney carriage vehicles, which may result from the traffic regulation order, although there were a small number of private hire which set down opposite the rank. However, it was very clear that between 30% and 39% of departures here were empty, usually in response to vehicles moving away to service telephone bookings. It may also be that some of the demand observed here was also for bookings rather than walk-in hires.

The other rank in St Austell has two parts. One section operates 24-hours per day, with the other providing night additional capacity. However, our observations found this location was nearly always full of parked private cars. Whilst many of these left at the end of the working day, there were some that remained overnight. There were some hackney carriages which did wait in the section of rank nearest to the club and Station pub although the bulk of passengers headed towards the station to get transport home.

At some points in time, it was not safe for vehicles to travel through this narrow street as the crowds often blocked the single running lane available when other vehicles were parked. It does seem prudent that those passengers wanting to get licensed vehicles are encouraged to move to the more spacious Station car park area, and it appears that this has generally developed over the last few years. There was comment made by one trade member that private hire were not allowed to pick up near the club, and therefore had set up at the station, but other than there being a rank just south of the club exit, we cannot find any reason that private hire cannot pick up booked journeys here, though the safety issues probably mean the station solution is preferable. However, it must also be remembered that the station car park is itself private land, where hackney carriages can only operate with a permit so this may not be as obviously simple a location for booked pick-ups as it may seem.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 18

Newquay Rank provision in Newquay is more spread out than in St Austell given the nature of the town. However, this also means that more people and more businesses are closer to ranks than is the case in St Austell, where many more recent developments are devoid of rank provision and far from the formal provision in the ‘old’ centre.

The largest rank is located in Fore Street with a 24-hour section nearest to the southern end of the street, supplemented by a larger section formally available from 21:30 onwards, continuing on from the main section northwards for some distance.

This rank has a feeder rank provided in Gover Lane, although this location also serves as provision for the night club located in this location.

The other rank in the western end of the town is that located on Manor Road, just south of the bus station. This location, as with the two above ranks, is on a one-way street, but has much less around the rank than most other locations.

Moving eastwards, there is a rank in Trebarwith Crescent, just north of Bank Street. This rank is the main daytime rank in the area but seems to see some link to a nearby booking office since passengers were regularly observed being escorted to the rank and waiting vehicles from along Bank Street.

Further east, Cliff Road has a rank outside the Towan Blystra pub, on the southern side of the road. There are several shops, restaurants and take- aways on this section of the road. Whilst there is abuse of the main rank by private vehicles, there is more significant abuse of the hashed white line area just beyond the rank, principally by vehicles servicing or visiting the take- away and other shops here.

The final Newquay rank is a private location alongside Newquay rail station platform. It is visible from the nearby shopping provision and our observations found many passengers came from the nearby area rather than from the very infrequent train service. The car park area is also privately operated by the rail operator, although the area also contains the local police headquarters also accessed from this car park.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 19

Spread of unmet demand The analysed raw data was reviewed to identify the locations and times when people had to wait for hackney carriages to arrive. In overall terms, across the Restormel data set, 1,438 passengers were observed using hackney carriages at or near ranks in the 596 hours of observed rank operation. Of these, 123, or 9% of all passengers, experienced a wait ranging from one to 30 minutes.

However, just 18, or 1.3% of all passengers experienced a wait of 11 minutes or more, and a further 3% had waits between six and ten minutes. The remaining 4.7% had waits between one and five minutes.

When all passengers travelling in hours when there was any wait at all were taken into account, 14% travelled in hours with an average passenger delay of a minute or more and a further 23% when the average passenger delay is non-zero but less than a minute. This means 37% of passengers travelled in hours where there was any delay, but as noted above, only the 9% actually experienced the delay. These figures are high but result from the focus of travel in a small number of hours. 2.9% of total observed hours (17) had average passenger delays of a minute or more (14% of all passengers). A further 1.5% of hours (9) had some average passenger delay, but less than a minute, but covered 23% of passengers. This is a high concentration of travelling hours.

Further investigation shows that 65% of the hours with average passenger delay a minute or more are at times when the total hourly passenger numbers were seven or less, very low. Many of these may relate to booked trips picked up from ranks, for which there is usually a longer wait than just turning up at a rank, although they may represent the wish for certainty that a vehicle will turn up. A high proportion of these were from the Duke Street rank in St Austell where we often saw people arrive mainly in afternoons when provision of vehicles here tends to be lower.

However, apart from the appearance that many vehicles were booked, there did seem to be confidence by the public that if they waited, a vehicle would arrive even if not booked, and there were very few, if any, walk-offs particularly from Duke Street and Trebarwith Crescent, the two main ranks acting in this manner for long periods.

Further discussion regarding the formal significance of these occasions of unmet demand occurs in the relevant chapter of this Report.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 20

Vehicle activity levels Our observations across the area found many cases where the number of vehicles servicing a location was clearly focussed on maybe no more than five vehicles. Typical cases were Trebarwith Crescent in Newquay and Duke Street in St Austell. A wider range of vehicles serviced the St Austell station rank and Fore Street, Newquay.

Further, it appears that there remains a separate set of vehicles servicing the two main towns, principally given the distance between the two, and also given that both have night peaks at similar times, albeit at different levels of intensity.

Across all the observations, a relatively high level of some 37% of all vehicles left the rank locations without passengers. This is symptomatic of many vehicles being on private hire circuits as well as servicing ranks.

Other vehicles at or near ranks The raw information collected at ranks was reviewed. For the full survey data, with just over 4,200 different vehicle movements observed, nearly 66% were of local hackney carriage vehicles at or near to ranks.

The next largest proportion of vehicles seen at or near ranks were private cars. These accounted for some 24% of all movements, quite a high level. By far the worst location was High Cross Street in St Austell, where 75% of observed movements were private cars (most related to people attending the club, since we ignored the fact that most of these spaces were full during daytime hours with parked vehicles).

Cliff Road in Newquay saw 63% of the vehicle movements there as private cars, although many waited only short periods. Newquay rail and bus stations also saw high levels of abuse (53% each). However, at none of these locations was there ever significant impact on hackney carriages since generally few hackney carriages were observed there. Nor did there appear to be any significant demand for hackney carriages to wait at these locations either, with overall demand very low, with the rail station having the highest regular flows of passengers and hackney carriages. What is surprising is that the operator of the rank and car park does not seem to enforce either given the relatively clear signing of this location.

This is in stark contrast to St Austell station where there is very little abuse of the rank by private vehicles, or in fact private hire vehicles, although we did not see any evidence of enforcement.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 21

Trebarwith Crescent and Fore Street were also well observed in general by the public, although delivery vehicles were an issue at Fore Street, where the difference between the all-day and part-time sections did not seem to be appreciated by these vehicles.

Observed usage by those with mobility impairments In terms of the style of hackney carriage observed across our rank observations, 39% appeared to be wheelchair accessible style, although this may also relate to the existence of some larger vehicles in the fleet which may not actually be wheel chair accessible.

With respect to actual use of the ranks by people in wheel chairs, just one example was observed at Duke Street, St Austell, although this vehicle actually was observed opposite the rank and was dropping off the passenger. Their pick-up was not observed.

There were three occasions at Fore Street Newquay and one at Trebarwith Crescent, Newquay, where passengers who appeared to have other disabilities but not a wheel chair were observed and were assisted into vehicles.

Comparison to other national statistics Each December national statistics are produced showing the total number of entries and exits from each station in the national rail network. These apply to the period that ends on 31 March of the year they are published. There are a total of 36 stations in the whole of Cornwall. The busiest station in Restormel is St Austell. This is the fourth busiest station in Cornwall, and 436th in the national order. In the latest year available, the station saw 460,778 entries and exits, or around 4,600 passengers leaving the station per week. This value suggests 9% of these leaves by hackney carriage – although this is an over-estimate as many non-station passengers also use this rank.

Over the period from the year ending 31 March 2014 to that ending 2018, there was a 2% fall in usage of the station. For a similar period, rank usage increased 29% although this might partly represent the observation of the night usage from the club there.

Newquay station also has a rank. This location is 17th in the Cornwall overall rankings and 1,503rd nationally. However, there are just six trains per day on weekdays and seven on Saturdays. The last year available saw some 108,308 passengers enter and leave, giving an estimated just under 1,100 per week.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 22

Again, the observations identified the rank was used by others as well as those from the relatively infrequent trains, but even assuming all observed passengers were from trains (an overestimate), the proportion leaving by hackney carriage was 7.5%.

Newquay has seen 8% growth in patronage in a similar time frame compared to the previous survey. However, rank passenger flows here have reduced by 70% in the same period based on our estimates. This is despite there usually being vehicles available here when trains arrive.

There are several other stations in Restormel but none have any rank provision nor do any have high passenger flows that might justify other than people phoning for a vehicle when arriving.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 23

4 General public views It is very important that the views of people within the area are obtained about the service provided by hackney carriage and private hire. A key element which these surveys seek to discover is specifically if people have given up waiting for hackney carriages at ranks (the most readily available measure of latent demand). However, the opportunity is also taken with these surveys to identify the overall usage and views of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles within the study area, and to give chance for people to identify current issues and factors which may encourage them to use licensed vehicles more.

Such surveys can also be key in identifying variation of demand for licensed vehicles across an area, particularly if there are significant areas of potential demand without ranks, albeit in the context that many areas do not have places apart from their central area with sufficient demand to justify hackney carriages waiting at ranks.

These surveys tend to be undertaken during the daytime period when more people are available, and when survey staff safety can be guaranteed. Further, interviews with groups of people or with those affected by alcohol consumption may not necessarily provide accurate responses, despite the potential value in speaking with people more likely to use hackney carriages at times of higher demand and then more likely unmet demand. Where possible, extension of interviews to the early evening may capture some of this group, as well as some studies where careful choice of night samples can be undertaken.

Our basic methodology requires a sample size of at least 200 to ensure stable responses. Trained and experienced interviewers are also important as this ensures respondents are guided through the questions carefully and consistently. A minimum sample of 50 interviews is generally possible by a trained interviewer in a day meaning that sample sizes are best incremented by 50, usually if there is targeting of a specific area or group (e.g. of students, or a sub-centre), although conclusions from these separate samples can only be indicative taken alone. For some authorities with multiple centres this can imply value in using a higher sample size, such as 250 if there are two large and one moderate sized centre.

It is normal practice to compare the resulting gender and age structure to the latest available local and national census proportions to identify if the sample has become biased in any way.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 24

More recently, general public views have been enlisted from the use of council citizens’ panels although the issue with these is that return numbers cannot be guaranteed. The other issue is that the structure of the sample responding cannot be guaranteed either, and it is also true that those on the panel have chosen to be there such that they may tend to be people willing to have stronger opinions than the general public randomly approached.

Finally, some recent surveys have placed an electronic copy of the questionnaire on their web site to allow interested persons to respond, although again there needs to be an element of care with such results as people choosing to take part may have a vested interest.

For this survey, as in 2014, the target was 100 interviews in each of the central areas of both St Austell and Newquay. However, it proved less easy to obtain interviews in St Austell such that the total obtained for St Austell was 77 although 102 were obtained in Newquay. Further disaggregation by the two locations was not undertaken.

For this sample, 47% said they had used a licensed vehicle in the area in the last three months, a level higher than the average for the three limited zones (39%). This is up from the value of 35% for 2014.

All respondents told us how often they used licensed vehicles. The results suggest some 2.5 trips per person per month, again a value higher than the typical for the restricted zones in Cornwall (1.7). Compared to 2014 this is again an increase from a very low 0.9 trips per month.

When this same question was asked, but strictly in respect of hackney carriage usage, the resulting number of trips per month was just 0.3, less than the regulated zones average of 0.5, and just 12% of the total licensed vehicle value, suggesting very low usage of hackney carriages in this zone. Again, this is increased from 2014 when the values ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 trips.

People told us how they obtained licensed vehicles in Restormel. Many provided multiple answers. Of all the answers provided, 43% said they phoned, 34% said a rank and 2% said they hailed. A further 2% said they used an app, the highest proportion in the three surveyed areas. Restormel gave the highest level of ‘other’ responses – with 13% saying they never use a licensed vehicle – a rare response that suggests the above figures should be revised removing those, which gives 54% telephone and 42% rank.

With respect to companies used, 37% told us between one and three companies they phoned. 15% gave three names, 39% two and the highest proportion, 46% gave just one company name.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 25

Of the total company responses given, 39% were for one company. There were 21 other companies named, with the second company getting just 11%, the third 10% and the fourth 9%. All other companies had 5% or less of mentions. Some names given may be the same company but in general the top four take over two thirds of mentions; but generally one company appears fairly dominant and the high proportion just naming one company suggests reasonable satisfaction. Interestingly, in this area, the top company was also observed to have quite a few noticeable hackney carriages clearly marked with their name.

Restormel was the only one of the three regulated areas where anyone said they could not remember seeing a hackney carriage in the area. 22% of those responding to the question about frequency of hackney carriage usage told us they could not remember seeing one in the area. This may relate to the lower usage of ranks and the more dispersed nature of the two main towns, where the actual ranks are not as obvious as those in the centres of the other two zones. However, this is also a significant change from 2014 when none responded that they could not remember seeing a hackney carriage.

A further 36% - very similar to the level in the other two areas – said they could not remember the last time they used one. This is reduced from 2014 and may explain the increase in people saying they were not aware of them, hackney carriages are less obvious to people for some unknown reason.

With respect to ranks, the top rank named, with 21% of responses, was St Austell station. A further 20% were aware of Duke Street, St Austell. A similar situation existed in Newquay where 13% said the station and 12% (between two names) said Fore Street. 3% specifically named Trebarwith Crescent with 2% saying Cliff Road. However, there were a lot of ‘colloquial’ names for Newquay ranks, which if properly allocated would increase proportions for each of the ranks. This seems to show better knowledge of ranks in Newquay since 2014, but worse knowledge in St Austell.

42% of people naming ranks said they would use the ones they named. Just 16 suggestions were given for places people would like to see ranks, but none were significant.

With respect to problems with the hackney carriage service, in common with the other two regulated zones, there were very few concerns. Just 10 responses were received, with the highest proportion being for driver knowledge of the area, although this was not significant.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 26

As is typical around the country, the largest and strongest response about matters that might increase peoples’ usage of hackney carriages was if they were cheaper. This was the most dominant response, followed by people saying ‘nothing’. Restormel zone had the lowest response in terms of numbers giving suggestions, about half the level in the two other zones, again confirming the relative lack of usage of hackney carriages compared to private hire in this zone.

80% of those responding to the question regarding needing an adapted vehicle said they did not need, or were not aware of anyone needing one. This level is lower than the other two regulated zones, suggesting more need for accessible vehicles in this zone. The dominant response in type terms was for a WAV style vehicle. The level is also reduced from 2014 perhaps suggesting a difference in need now.

A very high 79% of those responding told us they would always take the first vehicle at any rank. Just 18% said they would choose a saloon style and 3% a wheel chair accessible style. The dominant reason why people would choose was leaving a WAV vehicle for those who needed it.

48% felt there were enough WAV style vehicles in the area. 11% felt there were not enough at ranks. 3% said there were not enough WAV they could access by phone. The remainder were not sure.

The latent demand value for this zone was 5% for rank-based and 2% for hailing. Of the above, there was one mention of giving up at Newquay station, but none at St Austell station, so the council rank latent demand should be reduced to 4.5% for ranks. This provides a combined council latent demand value of 6.5% and a station estimate of just 0.5%.

The sample saw 68% having regular access to a car, lower than the regulated zone average. 72% said they lived in the area, again lower than the average.

Compared to the Cornwall population averages for 2018, the level of male respondents was very similar to the census (47% compared to 48% in the census). In terms of broad age groups, our survey spoke to about the Cornish average for the older age group (47% compared to 46% in the census), but less younger people (11% compared to 19% census) and correspondingly more in the middle group (43% compared to 35%).

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 27

5 Key stakeholder consultation The following key stakeholders were contacted in line with the recommendations of the BPG:

 Supermarkets  Hotels  Pubwatch / individual pubs / night clubs  Other entertainment venues  Restaurants  Hospitals  Police  Disability representatives  Rail operators  Other council contacts within all relevant local councils

Comments received have been aggregated below to provide an overall appreciation of the situation at the time of this survey. In some cases, there are very specific comments from given stakeholders, but we try to maintain their confidentiality as far as is possible. The comments provided in the remainder of this Chapter are the views of those consulted, and not that of the authors of this report.

Our information was obtained by telephone, email, letter or face to face meeting as appropriate. The list contacted includes those suggested by the Council, those drawn from previous similar surveys, and from general internet trawls for information. Our target stakeholders are as far as possible drawn from across the entire licensing area to ensure the review covers the full area and not just specific parts or areas.

For the sake of clarity, we cover key stakeholders from the public side separately to those from the licensed vehicle trade element, whose views are summarized separately in the following Chapter.

Where the statistical analyses in Chapter 2 demonstrate low levels of wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) provision, an increased emphasis will be given to the issue in terms of the focus of stakeholders but also in specific efforts to contact disabled users and their representatives. However, it must be remembered that none of our consultation is statutory and for cost effective and fixed budget reasons we limit our attempts to contact people generally to a first attempt and reminder.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 28

Supermarkets Four supermarkets told us their customers used licensed vehicles. Three said they had free-phones that customers used, or that they made calls themselves. One said people usually made their own arrangements. Two were not aware of any rank whilst one said they had a rank marked in their car park. Another suggested a company name rather than a rank. None had any issues with the service provided.

Hotels Five hotels said their customers did use licensed vehicles. Three said their reception would make arrangements for anyone asking for a licensed vehicle. One said people tended to make their own arrangements with the final location saying either reception would arrange, or people made their own arrangements. One was aware of two nearby ranks, with another aware of the High Cross Street rank in St Austell. Another named two companies they thought people would contact rather than use ranks. One said a very good service was provided but one said it was hard to obtain vehicles at school run time.

Public houses Four public houses told us their customers made use of licensed vehicles. All said customers usually made their own arrangements, but two said staff would get a vehicle if customers asked. Two were not aware of ranks, one suggested two private hire companies whilst another was aware of the Station and High Cross Street ranks in St Austell. Two had no further comment nor had any reported issues. One said all provision of licensed vehicles was good in their opinion whilst another voiced the concern they were too expensive.

Night clubs It was hard to find any active night clubs in the Restormel area. Two locations, both in Newquay, said their customers did use licensed vehicles. Both were aware of nearby ranks, with one saying customers would tend to go there or make other arrangements themselves. One said staff would make arrangements but that most customers made their own arrangements. One had no issues but the other said it was hard to get vehicles after midnight.

Other entertainment venues Most entertainment venues contacted had no comment about licensed vehicle services, with one saying they were not sure if their customers ever used them.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 29

Restaurants Three restaurants said their customers obtained local licensed vehicles. Two said people usually made their own arrangements whilst another said staff would do so if asked. One was aware of a nearby rank. The only issue people had heard was the expense of fares.

Other key stakeholders No other key stakeholder had any comment about licensed vehicles in Restormel.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 30

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 31

6 Trade stakeholder views The BPG encourages all studies to include ‘all those involved in the trade’. There are a number of different ways felt to be valid in meeting this requirement, partly dependent on what the licensing authority feel is reasonable and possible given the specifics of those involved in the trade in their area.

The most direct and least costly route is to obtain comment from trade representatives. This can be undertaken by email, phone call or face to face meeting by the consultant undertaking the study. In some cases to ensure validity of the work being undertaken it may be best for the consultation to occur after the main work has been undertaken. This avoids anyone being able to claim that the survey work was influenced by any change in behaviour.

Most current studies tend to issue a letter and questionnaire to all hackney carriage and private hire owners, drivers and operators. This is best issued by the council on behalf of the independent consultant. Usual return is now using an on-line form of the questionnaire, with the option of postal return still being provided, albeit in some cases without use of a freepost return. Returns can be encouraged by email or direct contact via representatives.

Some authorities cover private hire by issuing the letter and questionnaire to operators seeking they pass them on when drivers book on or off, or via vehicle data head communications.

In all cases, we believe it is essential we document the method used clearly and measure response levels. However, it is also rare for there to be high levels of response, with 5% typically felt to be good and reasonable.

Based on an estimated 420 drivers in the Restormel area in 2018, the response to the all-driver questionnaire was 13% (56 drivers), very good for this kind of survey. This was much higher than the nine responses from 2014.

Of the current responders, 34% said they drove hackney carriage vehicles only, 32% said they drove both hackney carriage and private hire, 32% private hire and the final 2% said they did not currently drive any vehicle.

The respondents represented an average length of service of just over eleven years, with the longest service quoted being 32 years, and the shortest just two months.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 32

In terms of the working week, 34% said they worked six days and 16% five days. 14% had worked all seven previous days – a high proportion. The average days worked was 4.6 given that 24% had worked between two and four days, and 13% said they had not worked the previous week to completing the survey.

The average number of hours worked was 36. This is significantly lower than the average of 43 hours identified in this area in 2014, although that was based on a very low return.

61% said they owned and drove their own vehicle. However, 63% said someone else also drove the vehicle they used.

86% said they accepted pre-bookings. 34% said this was by telephone with 30% saying by office radio systems. 16% said telephone or email, with a further 9% saying telephone or internet. 5% said telephone or an app.

85% felt there were enough hackney carriages in the Restormel zone. 89% felt hackney carriages should be allowed to use bus lanes in the area.

Drivers named 10 rank locations, covering all the ranks in the zone. However, some names were ‘colloquial’, e.g. Frankie and Bennies or Sailor’s. The top rank named was Fore St, Newquay with 24%, then Trebarwith Crescent Newquay with 14%, Duke Street St Austell with 13%, Cliff Road Newquay with 12%, St Austell Station with 11%, Newquay Bus Station with 8%, Newquay Station with 4% and High Cross Street and Gover Lane with just 1% each. The remaining 12% were unknown, unclear or general locations such as ‘Newquay’. These probably represent the levels of usage by drivers. This represents 63% to ranks in Newquay and 25% to St Austell.

All but three responded to the question if the limit policy remained correct. 85% agreed that it was and should remain. 45% said if the limit was removed they would leave the trade, whilst 17% said they would react by working longer hours to ensure their income remained the same. 11% said they would apply for a hackney carriage plate.

Many suggestions were given as to how the limit benefitted the public. Of all the responses given, the most popular, with 17% of the quotes was that it maintained the standard of the vehicle; 13% said it maintained driver professionalism, 12% said it helped build a relationship between the drivers and public and 10% said it helped supply keep equal with demand. 5% said it kept public safety high. Various other reasons were given, possibly one of the widest range of response to similar surveys we have seen.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 33

18% said they did not feel it provided any public benefit. Of these, two responses were from hackney carriages, six from private hire and three from people who said they drove both kinds of vehicle.

Further comments were also provided, some expressing concern that ranks were abused by private cars, and some telling us they felt there were too many vehicles, both hackney carriage and private hire, to allow a good living to be made.

There were other very useful comments, such as one driver informing us that when there was a separate Newquay zone there were 28 vehicles, but that now there are 58 in Newquay alone. There was a suggestion the survey should be undertaken in the Summer (although the driver survey was earlier, the rank work was in fact in June). Another felt there were no hackney carriages in St Austell, whilst others said the six spaces in Duke Street were often not sufficient. One explained that hackney carriages did not service the club when it was open using the nearby rank, but that private hire could not access that road (explaining why many use the station location). Another pointed out that bus service increases had reduced licensed vehicle usage further in the area.

A trade representative from Newquay told us daytime trade there is very low, with main night trade on Saturday nights. There are surges in demand at Easter, the May Bank Holiday weekends, the end of July and all August. The local hackney carriage trade has about 60 of the 74 hackney carriages working there. About 28 work with specific companies, the largest of which has around 12 hackney carriages linked. Some small hackney carriage only companies focus on non-rank work, although competition on quoted fares is so high that many prefer to work ranks when there is demand as remuneration from hackney fares is much better.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 34

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 35

7 Evaluation of unmet demand and its significance It is first important to define our specific view about what constitutes unmet demand. Our definition is when a person turns up at a hackney carriage rank and finds there is no vehicle there available for immediate hire. This normally leads to a queue of people building up, some of who may walk off (taken to be latent demand), whilst others will wait till a vehicle collects them. Later passengers may well arrive when there are vehicles there, but because of the queue will not obtain a vehicle immediately.

There are other instances where queues of passengers can be observed at hackney carriage ranks. This can occur when the level of demand is such that it takes longer for vehicles to move up to waiting passengers than passengers can board and move away. This often occurs at railway stations but can also occur at other ranks where high levels of passenger arrivals occur. We do not consider this is unmet demand, but geometric delay and although we note this, it is not counted towards unmet demand being significant.

The industry standard index of the significance of unmet demand (ISUD) was initiated at the time of the introduction of section 16 of the 1985 Transport Act as a numeric and consistent way of evaluating unmet demand and its significance. The ISUD methodology was initially developed by a university and then adopted by one of the leading consultant groups undertaking the surveys made necessary to enable authorities to retain their limit on hackney carriage vehicle numbers. The index has been developed and deepened over time to take into account various court challenges. It has now become accepted as the industry standard test of if identified unmet demand is significant.

The index is a statistical guide derived to evaluate if observed unmet demand is in fact significant. However, its basis is that early tests using first principles identified based on a moderate sample suggested that the level of index of 80 was the cut-off above which the index was in fact significant, and that unmet demand therefore was such that action was needed in terms of additional issue of plates to reduce the demand below this level, or a complete change of policy if it was felt appropriate. This level has been accepted as part of the industry standard. However, the index is not a strict determinant and care is needed in providing the input samples as well as interpreting the result provided. However, the index has various components which can also be used to understand what is happening in the rank-based and overall licensed vehicle market.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 36

ISUD draws from several different parts of the study data. Each separate component of the index is designed to capture a part of the operation of the demand for hackney carriages and reflect this numerically. Whilst the principal inputs are from the rank surveys, the measure of latent demand comes from the public on-street surveys, and any final decision about if identified unmet demand is significant, or in fact about the value of continuing the current policy of restricting vehicle numbers, must be taken fully in the context of a careful balance of all the evidence gathered during the survey process.

The present ISUD calculation has two components which both could be zero. In the case that either are zero, the overall index result is zero, which means they clearly demonstrate there is no unmet demand which is significant, even if other values are high.

The first component which can be zero is the proportion of daytime hours where people are observed to have to wait for a hackney carriage to arrive. The level of wait used is ANY average wait at all within any hour. The industry definition of these hours varies, the main index user counts from 10:00 to 18:00 (i.e. eight hours ending at 17:59). The present index is clear that unmet demand cannot be significant if there are no such hours. The only rider on this component is that the sample of hours collected must include a fair element of such hours, and that if the value is non-zero, review of the potential effect of a wider sample needs to be considered.

The other component which could be zero is the test identifying the proportion of passengers which are travelling in any hour when the average passenger wait in that hour is greater than one minute.

If both of these components are non-zero, then the remaining components of the index come into play. These are the peakiness factor, the seasonality factor, average passenger delay, and the latent demand factor.

Average passenger delay is the total amount of time waited by all passengers in the sample, divided by the total number of passengers observed who entered hackney carriages.

The seasonality factor allows for the undertaking of rank survey work in periods which are not typical, although guidance is that such periods should normally be avoided if possible particularly as the impact of seasons may not just be on the level of passenger demand, but may also impact on the level of supply. This is particularly true in regard to if surveys are undertaken when schools are active or not.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 37

Periods when schools are not active can lead to more hackney carriage vehicles being available whilst they are not required for school contract work. Such periods can also reduce hackney carriage demand with people away on holiday from the area. Generally, use of hackney carriages is higher in December in the run-up to Christmas, but much lower in January, February and the parts of July and August when more people are likely to be on holiday. The factor tends to range from 0.8 for December (factoring high demand level impacts down) to 1.2 for January / February (inflating the values from low demand levels upwards).

There can be special cases where summer demand needs to be covered, although high peaks for tourist traffic use of hackney carriages tend not to be so dominant at the current time, apart from in a few key tourist authorities.

The peakiness factor is generally either 1 (level demand generally) or 0.5 (demand has a high peak at one point during the week). This is used to allow for the difficulty of any transport system being able to meet high levels of peaking. It is rarely possible or practicable for example for any public transport system, or any road capacity, to be provided to cover a few hours a week.

The latent demand factor was added following a court case. It comes from asking people in the on-street questionnaires if they have ever given up waiting for a hackney carriage at a rank in any part of the area. This factor generally only affects the level of the index as it only ranges from 1.0 (no- one has given up) to 2.0 (everyone says they have). It is also important to check that people are quoting legitimate hackney carriage rank waits as some, despite careful questioning, quote giving up waiting at home, which must be for a private hire vehicle (even if in hackney carriage guise as there are few private homes with taxi ranks outside).

The ISUD index is the result of multiplying each of the components together and benchmarking this against the cut-off value of 80. Changes in the individual components of the index can also be illustrative. For example, the growth of daytime hour queueing can be an earlier sign of unmet demand developing than might be apparent from the proportion of people experiencing a queue particularly as the former element is based on any wait and not just that averaging over a minute. The change to a peaky demand profile can tend towards reducing the potential for unmet demand to be significant.

Finally, any ISUD value must be interpreted in the light of the sample used to feed it, as well as completely in the context of all other information gathered. Generally, the guide of the index will tend not to be overturned in regard to significant unmet demand being identified, but this cannot be assumed to be

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 38

the case – the index is a guide and a part of the evidence and needs to be taken fully in context.

The table below presents the various elements of the index of significance of unmet demand for the three studies undertaken for this zone.

ISUD element 2018 value 2014 value 2011 value Average passenger delay 0.57 0.21 0.26 % daytime hours with 10.77 11.1 0 passenger queues % passengers travelling in 14.05 4.8 3.41 hours with 1 minute or more APD Seasonal factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 Peakiness factor 0.5 0.5 0.5 Latent demand factor 1.07 1.005 1.04 Overall ISUD 45.9 5.6 Zero

The results above show that the 2018 estimate is the highest recorded, with a general upwards trend in the value. However, at 45.9, the value is still some way from the 80 which is taken to demonstrate the observed unmet demand is significant.

Comparing the values across the three studies, average passenger delay, the proportion of people travelling in hours with a minute or more of average passenger delay, and the latent demand factor have all increased since 2014, and in fact also since 2011. However, there has been a slight reduction in the level of daytime hours with queues, although there were no such hours in 2011.

Overall, the conclusion is that the level of unmet demand is not significant at this time, allowing retention and defence of the policy of limiting vehicle numbers. However, there is concern given the overall value has increased, particularly since the index is exponential such that the move towards significance tends to require less change the higher the value becomes.

Further discussion of this is undertaken within the synthesis section where it can be seen in context of the overall information database gathered for this survey.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 39

8 Summary, synthesis and study conclusions This Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hackney carriage zone on behalf of Cornwall Council has been undertaken following the guidance of the BPG and other recent case history regarding unmet demand and its significance.

Background and context This survey for the Restormel hackney carriage zone of Cornwall Council was undertaken for the full year between December 2017 and November 2018. On street pedestrian work occurred in March and May, rank work in June, licensed vehicle all-driver surveys in the first two months of 2018 and stakeholder consultation throughout the period.

Whilst overall vehicle numbers for the total licensed vehicle fleet have reduced, driver numbers have increased, although the hackney carriage specific driver numbers have reduced. Hackney carriage vehicle numbers, being restricted, have stayed at the same level through the period since the last survey. This suggests general equilibrium at this time in terms of the overall fleet, with no evidence of increased demand.

The supporting local transport plan document and policies have not changed since the last survey. Awareness of dependence on public transport sees need for encouraging licensed vehicle service where needed. There is also a need to ensure the overall trade invests in low pollution vehicles whilst retaining the ability to ensure Cornwall remains as private car-free as possible, which needs good links from sustainable transport to destinations, acknowledged as often best provided by licensed vehicle services.

More recent investment in bus services has increased the competition from these towards the licensed vehicle services.

Rank observations For this survey, revised methodology allowed more extensive rank observation. The main rank observations, undertaken at the same time within June as in 2014, found demand overall in Restormel about 5% less than that observed in the last survey. Given the expanded observations undertaken this time, this change could be underestimated.

Overall importance of ranks sees Fore Street Newquay, with a similar level of usage, increasing its share of the total. For St Austell station (private) rank the increase is accounted for by transfer of demand from the now almost unused High Cross Street rank. Fore Street has returned to the position it held in 2011. Two small ranks have seen significant reductions.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 40

Overall the results suggest a more stable situation in the zone in rank usage albeit at a very low overall level of rank-based demand. The difference between Newquay and St Austell in terms of ways that demand for licensed vehicles is met remains, with Newquay more rank-based and seeing 70% of the zone rank demand at this time. Part of this relates to the wider spread of ranks in Newquay whilst there have not been any new ranks following the out of town developments that have occurred more in St Austell.

The overall rank demand profile sees growth from weekdays through Friday to a peak on Saturday. The Saturday night – Sunday morning peak is very marked. Fore Street Newquay determines the overall level of night demand. Daytime demand is focussed on the key location of Duke Street, St Austell. Even with low demand (on average 13 vehicle movements per hour), there are few hours without any flow at any rank.

In terms of unmet demand, 9% of all passengers actually experienced unmet demand, covering waits from a minute up to half an hour. However, the proportion with waits of six or more minutes was just 4.3%. When a wider view was taken, passengers travelling in hour when there was an average delay of a minute upwards, the proportion was 14%, not high. These figures should be tempered by the fact that some two thirds of hours with average passenger delay a minute or more are actually when total hourly demand was seven passenger or less, suggesting the unmet demand arose from low demand levels and not from vehicles unable to cope with levels of demand. Many of these hours were afternoons at Duke Street St Austell. Often, unmet demand also seemed to demonstrate confidence by passengers that if they waited a vehicle would arrive.

There appeared to be a high level of focus of specific vehicles to specific ranks. Trebarwith Crescent, Newquay and Fore St, St Austell were specific cases in point. Overall, 37% of all vehicles left ranks without taking passengers, suggesting many are on private hire circuits but wait at ranks for these calls.

There was quite a high level, some 25% of all vehicle movements, accounted for by private cars abusing ranks. The worst location was High Cross Street in St Austell where the rank spaces appeared to be used by people attending the club in their own vehicles although this was compounded by little other usage being made of these spaces by hackney carriages in any event. Other locations saw abuse but with little impact on hackney carriages as they rarely used the ranks in question. On the contrary, St Austell station, Trebarwith Crescent and Fore Street were all highly avoided by private vehicles.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 41

There appeared to be 39% of the fleet observed at ranks which were wheel chair accessible. Just one person was seen using hackney carriages in a wheel chair at the Duke Street rank, St Austell, although this was actually a set down adjacent to this rank, with the corresponding return trip not observed.

Using national rail information a maximum estimate of 9% of those arriving at St Austell by train left using hackney carriages from the rank. However, given there are quite a few non-rail walk-ins to the rank (particularly related to the night club) this proportion is an over-estimate. Interestingly, these statistics suggested a 2% drop in usage since the last survey whereas we observed a 29% increase in passenger numbers.

The value of 7.5% of rail arrivals leaving by hackney carriage was a stronger over-estimate given higher levels of local trips from that location rather than from the few passenger train arrivals. The national statistics here suggest 8% patronage growth, but our (wider) observations actually identified a 70% fall in usage, despite there usually being vehicles at the rank when trains arrive.

On street public views Public interviews across the zone found a higher level of recent usage of licensed vehicles, now at 47%. Overall average levels of usage were also increased, seeing 2.9 licensed vehicle trips per person per month in 2018. However only 12%, a low level, of these are made by hackney carriages. 34% said they normally got licensed vehicles from ranks with 2% hailing, quite high compared to national levels of hailing. A notable point was that 13% said they never used licensed vehicle and 22% said they could not remember seeing a hackney carriage in the area.

Competition from private hire companies remained high, with the largest company taking about two fifths of all mentions. The second largest company obtained just over a tenth, with some 21 different companies named although many were only mentioned once.

The main ranks were well-known, with most of the other ranks also known about, but consistent marketing of where a rank actually is would probably help improve usage in our opinion. 42% of people said they used the ranks they named. There was no real demand for new ranks and overall high satisfaction with the hackney carriage service provided. However, this also had the down side that only price might encourage increased usage of vehicles.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 42

There appeared to be increased need for wheel chair accessible vehicles now compared to the previous survey, but only marginally so. On balance, those with an opinion felt there were enough hackney carriages that were wheel chair accessible although there were also a high level of people unsure about their answer to this question.

Latent demand was estimated at 6.5% for council ranks and just 0.5% for the private station ranks.

Our sample had 68% who said they had regular access to a car and 72% saying they were from this area. The proportion of males interviewed was similar to the Cornish census value, although less younger people were interviewed than the census suggested overall.

Key stakeholder views General key stakeholders all were positive about the service provided although many as usual related more to private hire than to hackney carriage. However, many were aware of ranks servicing their premises well. Other key stakeholders made no comment.

Trade views A very good trade response of some 13% was received. A good mix from across the trade was obtained. The average working week appeared to have reduced from 43 hours to 36 since the last survey. The average week was some 4.6 days although 34% said they worked six days.

61% owned their own vehicles and 63% said someone else drove the vehicle they used. 86% accepted pre-bookings.

Fore Street Newquay was claimed as the top used rank with 24% of mentions. Trebarwith Crescent was second with 15% followed by Duke Street at 13%.

85% felt there were enough hackney carriages in the zone and the same percentage also agreed with the limit being retained.

Drivers provided reasons why the limit benefitted the public, principally that it maintained vehicle standards, with a wide range of reasons provided, more than in other recent surveys.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 43

A trade representative from Newquay told us daytime trade there was low. The Newquay fleet was 60 of the 74 zone plates on offer. Some hackney carriages from this total were known not to work ranks, although many preferred rank work as it provided better reward to the drivers.

Formal evaluation of significance of unmet demand At the present time the calculated formal level of significance of unmet demand for Restormel remains short of the level that would define the observed unmet demand to be significant. The index has increased since the last survey resulting from the increase in the level of people travelling in hours when there is an average passenger delay of a minute or more. However, much of this resulted from waits at times of lower demand, periods notoriously hard to service well.

Synthesis The Restormel zone has seen a marginal decrease in the level of usage of hackney carriage ranks since the last survey. It retains a two area nature, with Newquay seeing mainly night demand and St Austell mainly daytime demand. The bulk of hackney carriages operate in the Newquay part of the area, partly because there is more disparate demand in the St Austell area resulting from the higher level of out of town development there, not supported by rank additions.

Both rail station ranks, though private, provide a service beyond that which comes from the trains.

Hackney carriages in the zone tend to need to add bookings or contracts to their menu of passengers to allow them to make a living. There are some hackney carriages that principally operate without servicing ranks, although many do service ranks as trips from ranks tend to provide better remuneration than those from the more competitive private hire element. People do appear willing to go to many of the ranks and wait if no vehicles are there confident a vehicle will come in a reasonable timescale.

Conclusions There is no unmet demand in the Restormel zone which at this time could be counted significant in terms of Section 16 of the 1985 Transport Act. This provides the possibility of maintaining the current policy limiting vehicle numbers, and retaining the level of vehicles at the same number. This conclusion covers both patent and latent demand and remains valid for the period of three years covered by the Best Practice Guidance. However, with the index being exponential there may be need for testing in two years’ time rather than the usual three to ensure unmet demand has not grown to levels that are significant. This would not require a full unmet demand survey, just a review of peak rank demand at the key locations of unmet demand.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 44

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 45

9 Recommendations On the basis of the evidence gathered in this Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hackney carriage zone for Cornwall Council, our key conclusion is that there is no evidence of any unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages either patent or latent which is significant at this point in time in the Cornwall Council licensing area of Restormel.

Given the present information to hand, it would seem prudent to retain the present limit. Fresh rank surveys would be required no later than June 2021 to provide evidence for the next due review of this policy. This is the current recommended time-frame within the Best Practice Guidance, based on the date the key evidence, i.e., rank observations, are undertaken.

This recommendation is subject to any national revision of legislation, or to any wider determination of overall policy towards hackney carriages in Cornwall, such as any review of the present zoning policy across the area. In the case of any area-wide review, this Report provides evidence specific to this zone regarding operational, public, trade and stakeholder elements of relevance to the wider discussion.

However, there is an element of concern that, with the exponential nature of the ISUD equation, if the trend continued from the previous levels that unmet demand might tend towards being significant towards the end of the survey period, such that interim testing two years hence might be appropriate. This could be remediated by testing of the key factor driving unmet demand towards significance, i.e. the number of occasions when off peak periods see people waiting for vehicles to arrive.

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 46

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 47

Appendix 1 – Industry statistics

Cornwall - all six zones

Cornwall unitary on 1/3/09, three zones have limited vehicle

numbers

% % lv total Hcv phv Hcd phd dd Ops hcv phv total d WAV WAV 1994D 379 1128 1994D 1997D 409 271 680 1205 1079 2284 1997D 2% 1999D 460 332 792 1274 1093 393 2760 1999D 174 3% 2001D 513 333 846 1292 1082 584 2958 2001D 151 3% 2004D 554 355 909 518 198 775 1491 2004D 161 2005D 563 361 924 374 182 957 1513 2005D 163 7% 2007D 507 395 902 419 298 1055 1772 2007D 162 17% 2009D 543 359 902 309 167 892 1368 2009D 172 20% 2010N 597 467 1064 352 275 820 1447 2010N 2011D 577 379 956 395 382 748 1525 2011D 183 14% 2012N 589 460 1049 398 370 723 1490 2012C 2013D 732 433 1165 400 357 697 1454 2013D 204 14% 2014N 628 411 1039 455 423 771 1648 2014N 2014C 600 424 1024 509 488 845 1842 2014C 2015D 586 357 943 421 389 718 1528 2015D 70 18% 2017D 626 518 1144 418 460 775 1653 2017D 179 11% 5% 2018C 522 407 929 374 497 791 1662 2018C 174 11% 6% Key: C=Council information, D=DfT statistics, N=National Private Hire Association Statistics

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 48

Restormel

% % lv total hcv phv Hcd phd dd Ops hcv phv total d WAV WAV 1994D 71 200 1994D 1997D 74 90 164 257 293 550 1997D 1999D 74 115 189 302 402 704 1999D 48 2001D 74 111 185 293 377 670 2001D 53 4% 2004D 73 140 213 205 133 61 399 2004D 52 5% 2005D 73 140 213 0 2005D 2007D 73 140 213 128 254 126 508 2007D 2010N 74 156 230 0 2010N 4% 5% 2012N 74 159 233 0 2012C 2014C 74 140 214 0 2014C 2018C 74 75 149 0 2018C Key: C=Council information, D=DfT statistics, N=National Private Hire Association Statistics

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 49

Appendix 2 – List of ranks

Rank / operating hours Spaces Comments (approx)

Newquay

Fore Street 4 24 hour part of mainly night rank

Fore Street 21:30 to 06:00 10 Additional spaces to above

Gover Lane 21:30 to 06:00 6 Feeder for above rank

Manor Road, Bus Station 4 Little used but abused by parked vehicles

Trebarwith Crescent 4 Current day rank

Trebarwith Crescent 7 Feeder for above

Cliff Road 4 Outside Towan Blystra Wetherspoons – good location but regularly parked on long term

Cliff Road n/a Former rank deleted due to closure and redevelopment of site providing demand

Railway Station 3 Private rank requiring permit from First Great Western / Cabfind

St Austell

High Cross Street (north side) 5 Mainly serves night demand, both abused by parking High Cross Street (north side) 3 part time 21:30 to 06:00

Duke Street 4 Main daytime rank

Railway station 5 Private rank needing supplementary permit from First Great Western / Cabfind

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 50

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 51

Appendix 3 – Timetable of rank observations

Please see below after Appendix 6

Appendix 4 – Detailed rank observation results

Please see below after Appendix 6

Appendix 5 – Detailed on street interview results

Please see below after Appendix 6

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 52

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 53

Appendix 6 List of Stakeholders consulted

Key consultee Response Supermarkets Asda, Cromwell Rd, St Austell Y Tesco, Daniel’s Lane, St Austell N Iceland, St Austell N Asda, Cliff Rd, Newquay Y Morrisons, Treloggan Rd, Newquay Y Sainsbury’s, The Whim, Newquay Y

Hotels White Hart Hotel, St Austell Y Travelodge, Pentewan Rd, St Austell N The Cornwall Hotel, Spa and Estate, St Austell Y Elliot Hotel, Newquay Y Great Western Hotel, Newquay Y Atlantic Hotel, Newquay Y

Restaurants / Cafes The Grill, St Austell N Frankie and Benny’s, St Austell R Prezzo, Trinity St, St Austell Y Frankie and Benny’s, Newquay N Bunters East St, Newquay N Captain Jacks, Newquay N Plus 2 St Austell N Nile’s Coffee Corner, St Austell Y St Austell Community Kitchen Y Bits and Bobs, St Austell Y

Entertainment Cornwall Football Golf N Eden Project R Restormel Castle N White River Cinema N Cornwalls Regimental Museum Y

Public Houses Globe Inn Y Kings Arms Y Welcome Home Inn, St Austell Y Holmbush Inn, St Austell N Seven Stars, St Austell Y

Night Clubs Bertie’s, Newquay Y Foster’s, Newquay N

Unmet taxi demand survey - Restormel hcv zone 54

Sailor’s, Newquay Y The Club, St Austell N

Other key stakeholder groups Post Office, High Cross St, St Austell R Police N Via Cornwall Disability (no detailed names provided) N

Unmet demand survey Cornwall 2018 CTS Traffic and Transportation feeders (private) (private) Newquay Newquay Cliff Road Cliff (Wetherspoons) Newquay Station NewquayStation St Austell Station Station Austell St High Cross Street CrossHigh Street Duke St St Austell St DukeSt Manor Rd , Bus stn Bus , Rd Manor Bank St, Newquay - St, Bank Trebarwith Crescent Trebarwith ignored place, in not Fore St Newqu y inclyNewqu St Fore (north side) St Austell St side) (north Gover Lane, Newquay Lane, Gover Zone Restormel (Newquay and St Austell) Usage order 2014 5 28 13 11 14 29 9 23 17 7 24 hr + pt 2130 - Operating Hours 24 hr 24 hr 24 hr 24 hr n/k 24 hr time 24 hr 24 hr 0600 section Thursday 09:00 Thursday 10:00 1 w x x x Thursday 11:00 2 x x x x x x x x Thursday 12:00 3 x x x x x x x x Thursday 13:00 4 x x x x w x x x Thursday 14:00 5 x x x x w x x x Thursday 15:00 6 x x x x w x x x Thursday 16:00 7 x x x x x x x x Thursday 17:00 8 x x x x w x x x Thursday 18:00 9 x x x x x x x x Thursday 19:00 10 x x x x w x x x Thursday 20:00 11 x x x x x x x x Thursday 21:00 12 x x x x w x x x Thursday 22:00 13 x x x x x x x x Thursday 23:00 14 x x x x x x x x Thursday 00:00 15 x x x x x x x Friday 01:00 16 x x x x x x x Friday 02:00 17 x x x x x x x Friday 03:00 x x x x x x x x Friday 04:00 x x x x x x x Friday 05:00 x x x x x x x Friday 06:00 x x x x x x x Friday 07:00 x xxx xx1 Friday 08:00 x xxx xx2 Friday 09:00 x xxx xxx3 Friday 10:00 x xxx wxx4 Friday 11:00 18 1xx xx15 Friday 12:00 19 2xx xx26 Friday 13:00 20 3xx wx37 Friday 14:00 21 4x1 wx48 Friday 15:00 22 5x2 wx59 Friday 16:00 23 6x3 xx610 Friday 17:00 24 7x4 wx711 Friday 18:00 25 x 1 x x x 8 12 Friday 19:00 26 x 2 x w x x 13 Friday 20:00 27 x 3 x x 1 x 14 Friday 21:00 28x x 4 5 w 2x15 Friday 22:00 29x x 5 6 x 3x16 Friday 23:00 30x x 6 7 x 4x17 Friday 00:00 31 x x 7 8 x 5 x Saturday 01:00 32 x x 8 x x 6 x Saturday 02:00 x x x x x x x x Saturday 03:00 x x x x x x x x Saturday 04:00 x x x x x x x x Saturday 05:00 x x x x x x x x Saturday 06:00 x x x x x x x x x Saturday 07:00 x x x x x x x x x Saturday 08:00 x x x x x x x x x Saturday 09:00 x x x x x 1 x x x Saturday 10:00 33 x x x x 2 x x x Saturday 11:00 34 x x x x 3 x x x Saturday 12:00 35 x x x x 4 x x x Saturday 13:00 36 x x x x 5 x x x Saturday 14:00 37 x x x x 6 x x x Saturday 15:00 38 x x x x 7 x x x Saturday 16:00 39 x x x x 8 x x x Saturday 17:00 40 x x x x 9 x x x Saturday 18:00 41xxxx 10xxx Saturday 19:00 42 1 x x x x x x x Saturday 20:00 432xxx 11xxx Saturday 21:00 44 3 x 9 x x x x x Saturday 22:00 454x10x xxxx Saturday 23:00 46 5 x 11 x x x x Saturday 00:00 47 6 x 12 x x x x Sunday 01:00 48 7 x x x x Sunday 02:00 49 8 x x x x Sunday 03:00 50 9 x x x x Sunday 04:00 51 10 x x x x Sunday 05:00 52 x x x x x Sunday 06:00 53 x x x Sunday 07:00 54 x Sunday 08:00

Week day Week night Weekend day Weekend night Inter periods Outline quick watch only 70 54 68 68 67 0 63 63 63 49 Total hours at site 54 10 7 12 8 0 11 6 8 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 10 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 11 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 12 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 13 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 14 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 15 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 16 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 17 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 18 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 19 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 20 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 21 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 22 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 23 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 0 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 1 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 2 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 3 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 4 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 5 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 6 0 R New Bus Stn 7/6/18 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a Number of people waiting 6-10 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Number of people waiting 1-5 Total PassengerTotal Departures % of vehicles leaving empty Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour Hour a a fare) more mins mins fare) Location Date

R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 7 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 8 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 9 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:01:05 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 10 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 11 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 12 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 13 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:09:05 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 14 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:01:57 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 15 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 16 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 17 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 18 1 2 1 2 0 0% 1 00:21:05 00:21:05 00:21:05 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 19 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 20 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 21 1 0 00:58:39 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 22 0 0 1 100% 1 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 23 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 0 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 1 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 2 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 3 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 4 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 5 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 6 0 R New Bus Stn 8/6/18 5 2 1 2 4 80% 5 Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a Number of people waiting 6-10 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Number of people waiting 1-5 % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour Hour a a fare) more mins mins fare) Location Date

R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 7 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 8 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 9 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 10 1 0 00:10:05 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 11 1 0 0 2 100% 2 00:09:05 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 12 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 13 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:27:05 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 14 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 15 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 16 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 17 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 18 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 19 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 20 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 21 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 22 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 23 0 R New Bus Stn 10/6/18 0 0 R New Bus Stn 10/6/18 1 0 R New Bus Stn 10/6/18 2 0 R New Bus Stn 10/6/18 3 0 R New Bus Stn 10/6/18 4 0 R New Bus Stn 10/6/18 5 0 R New Bus Stn 10/6/18 6 0 R New Bus Stn 9/6/18 3 0 0 0 3 100% 3 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 10 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:05:05 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 11 0 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 12 0 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 13 0 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 14 0 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 15 0 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 16 0 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 17 0 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 18 2 0 0 2 100% 2 00:05:35 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 19 1 0 00:15:05 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 20 3 0 0 4 100% 4 00:06:45 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 21 1 0 00:19:05 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 22 3 2 1 2 3 75% 4 00:04:45 00:03:05 00:03:05 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 23 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:15:05 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 0 2 0 0 2 100% 2 00:03:35 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 1 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 2 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 3 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 4 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 5 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 6 0 R New Cliff Rd 7/6/18 14 2 1 2 13 93% 14 Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a Number of people waiting 6-10 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Number of people waiting 1-5 Maximum VehicleTime Waiting Total PassengerTotal Departures of% vehicles leaving empty Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) Hour more mins mins fare) Location Date

R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 7 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 8 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 9 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 10 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:03:05 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 11 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 12 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:02:05 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 13 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:00:05 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 14 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 15 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 16 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 17 2 0 0 2 100% 2 00:00:35 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 18 1 3 1 3 0 0% 1 00:00:42 00:00:42 00:00:42 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 19 2 0 0 1 100% 1 00:04:06 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 20 6 10 4 2.5 3 43% 7 00:02:29 00:02:33 00:06:32 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 21 2 3 2 1.5 0 0% 2 00:11:59 00:11:59 00:23:03 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 22 5 5 4 1.2 1 20% 5 00:01:44 00:01:57 00:02:49 00:00:43 00:01:48 2 00:01:48 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 23 5 1 1 1 4 80% 5 00:02:20 00:01:27 00:01:27 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 0 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 1 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 2 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 3 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 4 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 5 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 6 0 R New Cliff Rd 8/6/18 26 22 12 1.8 14 54% 26 Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a Number of people waiting 6-10 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Number of people waiting 1-5 % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour Hour a a fare) more mins mins fare) Location Date

R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 7 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 8 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 9 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 10 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:00:05 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 11 2 0 0 1 100% 1 00:03:05 00:06:05 00:06:05 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 12 3 1 3 0 0% 1 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 13 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 14 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 15 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:00:05 00:00:05 00:00:05 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 16 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 17 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:00:35 00:01:05 00:01:05 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 18 2 0 0 1 100% 1 00:01:05 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 19 2 2 1 2 2 67% 3 00:03:35 00:00:05 00:00:05 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 20 4 0 0 4 100% 4 00:02:35 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 21 2 0 0 2 100% 2 00:01:11 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 22 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 23 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:00:42 R New Cliff Rd 10/6/18 0 2 0 0 2 100% 2 00:06:40 R New Cliff Rd 10/6/18 1 0 R New Cliff Rd 10/6/18 2 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:00:05 00:00:05 00:00:05 R New Cliff Rd 10/6/18 3 1 3 1 3 0 0% 1 00:00:05 00:00:05 00:00:05 R New Cliff Rd 10/6/18 4 0 R New Cliff Rd 10/6/18 5 0 R New Cliff Rd 10/6/18 6 0 R New Cliff Rd 9/6/18 23 11 6 1.8 17 74% 23 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R New Fore St 7/6/18 10 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:04:09 R New Fore St 7/6/18 11 0 R New Fore St 7/6/18 12 1 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:16:04 00:16:04 00:16:04 R New Fore St 7/6/18 13 2 2 1 2 1 50% 2 00:00:50 00:01:16 00:01:16 R New Fore St 7/6/18 14 0 R New Fore St 7/6/18 15 4 3 3 1 1 25% 4 00:03:12 00:03:43 00:08:13 R New Fore St 7/6/18 16 3 2 1 2 1 50% 2 00:30:55 00:30:20 00:30:20 R New Fore St 7/6/18 17 5 1 1 1 3 75% 4 00:26:41 00:47:36 01:03:17 R New Fore St 7/6/18 18 4 1 1 1 3 75% 4 00:35:19 00:38:36 00:38:36 R New Fore St 7/6/18 19 9 5 2 2.5 3 60% 5 00:47:17 01:04:19 01:53:35 R New Fore St 7/6/18 20 5 3 2 1.5 4 67% 6 00:45:39 00:40:26 01:02:51 R New Fore St 7/6/18 21 6 5 4 1.2 3 43% 7 00:31:57 00:30:24 00:53:27 R New Fore St 7/6/18 22 17 24 16 1.5 2 11% 18 00:09:26 00:09:34 00:23:52 R New Fore St 7/6/18 23 16 19 10 1.9 2 17% 12 00:26:04 00:25:45 01:01:46 R New Fore St 8/6/18 0 3 4 3 1.3 3 50% 6 00:59:29 01:03:05 01:17:03 R New Fore St 8/6/18 1 1 4 3 1.3 1 25% 4 00:45:58 00:45:58 00:45:58 R New Fore St 8/6/18 2 6 5 5 1 0 0% 5 00:11:35 00:11:35 00:31:16 R New Fore St 8/6/18 3 2 5 2 2.5 2 50% 4 00:10:05 R New Fore St 8/6/18 4 0 R New Fore St 8/6/18 5 0 R New Fore St 8/6/18 6 0 R New Fore St 7/6/18 85 84 55 1.5 30 35% 85 Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for Number of people waiting 1-5 Number of people waiting 6- Maximum VehicleTime Waiting Total PassengerTotal Departures of% vehicles leaving empty Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Maximum Maximum passenger wait Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) 10 10 mins Hour a a fare) more mins time Location Date

R New Fore St 8/6/18 7 0 R New Fore St 8/6/18 8 2 3 1 3 0 0% 1 00:04:35 00:03:05 00:03:05 R New Fore St 8/6/18 9 2 0 0 3 100% 3 00:05:35 R New Fore St 8/6/18 10 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:01:35 R New Fore St 8/6/18 11 3 0 0 3 100% 3 00:01:29 R New Fore St 8/6/18 12 0 R New Fore St 8/6/18 13 4 3 2 1.5 1 33% 3 00:07:19 00:06:02 00:07:52 R New Fore St 8/6/18 14 1 3 2 1.5 0 0% 2 00:17:13 00:17:13 00:17:13 R New Fore St 8/6/18 15 7 4 4 1 1 20% 5 00:17:37 00:16:52 00:30:02 R New Fore St 8/6/18 16 4 3 2 1.5 2 50% 4 00:20:15 00:24:31 00:28:22 R New Fore St 8/6/18 17 11 5 5 1 5 50% 10 00:21:37 00:23:48 00:34:59 R New Fore St 8/6/18 18 7 8 5 1.6 3 38% 8 00:26:57 00:18:05 00:22:41 R New Fore St 8/6/18 19 15 3 3 1 8 73% 11 00:25:45 00:31:21 00:48:38 R New Fore St 8/6/18 20 16 13 9 1.4 7 44% 16 00:16:14 00:17:49 00:34:06 R New Fore St 8/6/18 21 17 18 12 1.5 6 33% 18 00:18:06 00:18:46 00:32:06 R New Fore St 8/6/18 22 32 35 22 1.6 6 21% 28 00:15:55 00:16:11 00:28:51 R New Fore St 8/6/18 23 32 58 34 1.7 1 3% 35 00:09:40 00:09:40 00:18:25 R New Fore St 9/6/18 0 34 55 40 1.4 0 0% 40 00:08:40 00:08:40 00:19:42 00:00:01 00:01:48 1 00:01:48 R New Fore St 9/6/18 1 0 R New Fore St 9/6/18 2 26 36 15 2.4 8 35% 23 00:02:28 00:02:50 00:24:05 00:04:00 00:06:51 14 10 4 00:13:00 R New Fore St 9/6/18 3 24 46 21 2.2 1 5% 22 00:13:25 00:13:25 00:30:05 00:02:25 00:07:17 4 10 00:10:00 R New Fore St 9/6/18 4 2 17 7 2.4 0 0% 7 00:08:05 00:08:05 00:16:05 R New Fore St 9/6/18 5 0 R New Fore St 9/6/18 6 0 R New Fore St 8/6/18 240 310 184 1.7 56 23% 240 Number of people waiting 6-10 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for Number of people waiting 1-5 Maximum VehicleTime Waiting % of% vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) Hour a a fare) more mins mins Location Date

R New Fore St 9/6/18 7 0 R New Fore St 9/6/18 8 0 R New Fore St 9/6/18 9 0 R New Fore St 9/6/18 10 0 R New Fore St 9/6/18 11 1 0 00:20:52 00:20:52 00:20:52 R New Fore St 9/6/18 12 4 4 2 2 2 50% 4 00:11:46 00:16:03 00:23:50 R New Fore St 9/6/18 13 1 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:38:24 00:38:24 00:38:24 R New Fore St 9/6/18 14 1 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:01:48 R New Fore St 9/6/18 15 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:02:44 R New Fore St 9/6/18 16 4 5 2 2.5 1 33% 3 00:11:42 00:09:37 00:16:07 R New Fore St 9/6/18 17 6 4 2 2 3 60% 5 00:15:01 00:17:28 00:28:42 R New Fore St 9/6/18 18 9 10 7 1.4 3 30% 10 00:06:37 00:07:03 00:17:54 R New Fore St 9/6/18 19 10 5 3 1.7 7 70% 10 00:20:12 00:20:39 00:27:59 R New Fore St 9/6/18 20 15 7 6 1.2 6 50% 12 00:10:44 00:11:00 00:31:13 R New Fore St 9/6/18 21 13 9 8 1.1 7 47% 15 00:08:59 00:09:03 00:30:35 R New Fore St 9/6/18 22 29 26 20 1.3 6 23% 26 00:07:04 00:06:58 00:15:03 R New Fore St 9/6/18 23 28 38 23 1.7 3 12% 26 00:07:02 00:07:07 00:20:25 00:02:10 00:05:10 10 5 1 00:11:45 R New Fore St 10/6/18 0 46 71 45 1.6 4 8% 49 00:04:52 00:04:51 00:11:18 00:00:03 00:01:04 4 00:01:04 R New Fore St 10/6/18 1 46 69 45 1.5 0 0% 45 00:03:14 00:03:14 00:07:32 00:00:29 00:04:56 2 5 00:06:18 R New Fore St 10/6/18 2 53 94 53 1.8 1 2% 54 00:03:15 00:03:16 00:12:04 00:00:04 00:01:30 5 00:01:43 R New Fore St 10/6/18 3 51 85 47 1.8 1 2% 48 00:04:57 00:04:58 00:10:34 R New Fore St 10/6/18 4 20 43 25 1.7 2 7% 27 00:02:20 00:02:19 00:04:36 R New Fore St 10/6/18 5 0 R New Fore St 10/6/18 6 0 R New Fore St 9/6/18 338 472 290 1.6 48 14% 338 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R New Gover Ln 7/6/18 17 0 R New Gover Ln 7/6/18 18 0 R New Gover Ln 7/6/18 19 0 R New Gover Ln 7/6/18 20 0 R New Gover Ln 7/6/18 21 0 R New Gover Ln 7/6/18 22 0 R New Gover Ln 7/6/18 23 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 0 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 1 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 2 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 3 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 4 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 5 0 R New Gover Ln 7/6/18 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 17 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 18 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 19 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 20 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 21 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 22 3 0 0 2 100% 2 00:09:05 00:24:05 00:24:05 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 23 4 1 4 0 0% 1 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 0 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 1 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 2 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 3 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 4 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 5 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 6 0 R New Gover Ln 8/6/18 3 4 1 4 2 67% 3 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 17 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 18 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 19 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 20 1 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:30:58 00:30:58 00:30:58 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 21 2 2 1 2 1 50% 2 00:17:39 00:27:12 00:27:12 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 22 5 3 2 1.5 2 50% 4 00:04:51 00:06:35 00:15:17 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 23 1 2 1 2 1 50% 2 00:19:30 R New Gover Ln 10/6/18 0 0 R New Gover Ln 10/6/18 1 0 R New Gover Ln 10/6/18 2 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:00:10 R New Gover Ln 10/6/18 3 0 R New Gover Ln 10/6/18 4 1 2 1 2 0 0% 1 00:00:48 00:00:48 00:00:48 R New Gover Ln 10/6/18 5 0 R New Gover Ln 10/6/18 6 0 R New Gover Ln 10/6/18 7 0 R New Gover Ln 9/6/18 11 10 6 1.7 5 46% 11 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R New Stn 7/6/18 10 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:15:05 00:26:05 00:26:05 R New Stn 7/6/18 11 4 2 2 1 1 33% 3 00:24:35 00:31:45 01:08:05 R New Stn 7/6/18 12 4 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:19:20 R New Stn 7/6/18 13 0 0 2 100% 2 R New Stn 7/6/18 14 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:00:05 R New Stn 7/6/18 15 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:03:05 R New Stn 7/6/18 16 0 R New Stn 7/6/18 17 0 R New Stn 7/6/18 18 0 R New Stn 7/6/18 19 0 R New Stn 7/6/18 20 0 R New Stn 7/6/18 21 0 R New Stn 7/6/18 22 0 R New Stn 7/6/18 23 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 0 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 1 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 2 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 3 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 4 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 5 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 6 0 R New Stn 7/6/18 12 4 4 1 8 67% 12 Number of people waiting 1- Number of people waiting 6- Maximum VehicleTime Waiting % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Average Vehicle TimeWaiting Empty Vehicle Departures Maximum Maximum passenger wait Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) (for a fare) 10 10 mins 5 mins Hour more time Location Date

R New Stn 8/6/18 7 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 8 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 9 4 0 0 3 100% 3 00:06:20 00:10:05 00:10:05 R New Stn 8/6/18 10 1 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:08:05 R New Stn 8/6/18 11 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 12 2 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:18:05 00:18:05 00:20:05 R New Stn 8/6/18 13 1 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:37:05 00:37:05 00:37:05 R New Stn 8/6/18 14 2 6 2 3 1 33% 3 00:17:05 00:15:05 00:15:05 R New Stn 8/6/18 15 1 2 1 2 0 0% 1 00:26:05 00:26:05 00:26:05 R New Stn 8/6/18 16 3 3 2 1.5 0 0% 2 00:10:05 00:10:05 00:25:05 R New Stn 8/6/18 17 2 4 3 1.3 0 0% 3 00:00:05 00:00:05 00:00:05 00:07:30 00:10:00 3 00:10:00 R New Stn 8/6/18 18 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 19 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 20 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 21 4 8 3 2.7 0 0% 3 00:04:35 00:02:25 00:07:05 R New Stn 8/6/18 22 2 0 0 3 100% 3 00:09:35 R New Stn 8/6/18 23 2 0 0 1 100% 1 00:08:35 00:11:05 00:11:05 R New Stn 9/6/18 0 1 1 1 0 0% 1 R New Stn 9/6/18 1 0 R New Stn 9/6/18 2 0 R New Stn 9/6/18 3 0 R New Stn 9/6/18 4 0 R New Stn 9/6/18 5 0 R New Stn 9/6/18 6 0 R New Stn 8/6/18 24 27 15 1.8 9 38% 24 Average Vehicle Time Waiting Average Vehicle TimeWaiting Number of people waiting Number of people waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Maximum Maximum passenger wait Total VehicleTotal Departures Number waiting 11 mins Maximum Vehicle Waiting No of Vehicle Arrivals Waiting in Time Hour % % of vehicles leaving Waiting Time, those Average Passenger Average Passenger Average vehicle Total PassengerTotal Loaded VehicleLoaded Time (for a fare) waiting only Departures Departures occupancy 6-10 6-10 mins (for a fare) 1-5 mins or more empty Hour time Location Date

R New Stn 9/6/18 7 0 R New Stn 9/6/18 8 0 R New Stn 9/6/18 9 7 1 1 1 4 80% 5 00:30:54 00:40:34 01:13:44 R New Stn 9/6/18 10 2 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:16:23 00:20:53 00:20:53 R New Stn 9/6/18 11 1 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:41:41 R New Stn 9/6/18 12 4 1 1 1 3 75% 4 00:18:24 00:30:15 00:44:06 R New Stn 9/6/18 13 2 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:15:59 R New Stn 9/6/18 14 3 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:07:16 00:01:23 00:01:23 R New Stn 9/6/18 15 5 3 2 1.5 1 33% 3 00:21:42 00:18:21 00:21:56 R New Stn 9/6/18 16 2 7 3 2.3 1 25% 4 00:14:50 00:14:50 00:19:53 R New Stn 9/6/18 17 2 0 0 1 100% 1 00:21:07 R New Stn 9/6/18 18 3 6 3 2 1 25% 4 00:01:17 00:01:17 00:02:01 R New Stn 9/6/18 19 1 0 00:30:05 00:30:05 00:30:05 R New Stn 9/6/18 20 2 4 2 2 0 0% 2 00:24:35 00:29:05 00:29:05 R New Stn 9/6/18 21 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:20:05 00:20:05 00:20:05 R New Stn 9/6/18 22 1 2 1 2 1 50% 2 00:10:05 R New Stn 9/6/18 23 2 0 0 2 100% 2 00:05:05 R New Stn 10/6/18 0 0 R New Stn 10/6/18 1 0 R New Stn 10/6/18 2 0 R New Stn 10/6/18 3 0 R New Stn 10/6/18 4 0 R New Stn 10/6/18 5 0 R New Stn 10/6/18 6 0 R New Stn 10/6/18 7 0 R New Stn 9/6/18 38 28 17 1.6 21 55% 38 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 10 2 0 0 1 100% 1 00:05:35 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 11 8 3 2 1.5 7 78% 9 00:09:35 00:03:05 00:06:05 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 12 4 4 3 1.3 1 25% 4 00:07:05 00:08:05 00:12:05 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 13 5 8 4 2 1 20% 5 00:14:53 00:17:05 00:24:05 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 14 3 6 3 2 0 0% 3 00:07:05 00:07:05 00:12:05 00:00:45 00:03:00 2 00:03:00 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 15 5 5 3 1.7 1 25% 4 00:04:05 00:04:45 00:08:05 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 16 1 0 0 2 100% 2 00:39:05 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 17 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:02:05 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 18 4 0 0 2 100% 2 00:25:20 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 19 1 0 0 2 100% 2 00:28:05 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 20 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:19:05 00:19:05 00:19:05 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 21 2 6 2 3 1 33% 3 00:18:05 00:12:05 00:12:05 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 22 0 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 23 2 0 0 1 100% 1 00:30:35 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 0 0 0 1 100% 1 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 1 0 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 2 0 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 3 0 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 4 0 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 5 0 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 6 0 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 39 32 17 22 39 Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for Number of people waiting 1-5 Number of people waiting 6- Maximum VehicleTime Waiting Total PassengerTotal Departures of% vehicles leaving empty Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Maximum Maximum passenger wait Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) 10 10 mins Hour a a fare) more mins time Location Date

R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 7 0 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 8 0 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 9 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:15:35 00:05:05 00:05:05 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 10 4 0 0 2 100% 2 00:22:30 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 11 4 2 1 2 4 80% 5 00:18:35 00:18:10 00:19:43 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 12 3 4 3 1.3 1 25% 4 00:13:06 00:12:53 00:22:52 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 13 8 1 1 1 5 83% 6 00:12:04 00:20:51 00:27:55 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 14 4 4 1 4 4 80% 5 00:16:42 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 15 5 2 1 2 3 75% 4 00:28:01 00:11:28 00:11:28 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 16 1 0 0 3 100% 3 00:09:12 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 17 4 0 0 2 100% 2 00:26:17 00:24:09 00:24:09 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 18 4 2 1 2 4 80% 5 00:13:50 00:18:05 00:18:05 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 19 3 2 1 2 2 67% 3 00:38:05 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 20 4 2 1 2 3 75% 4 00:35:35 00:32:05 00:32:05 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 21 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 01:06:05 00:39:05 00:39:05 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 22 1 0 0 1 100% 1 01:12:05 R New Treb Cres 8/6/18 23 0 0 1 100% 1 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 0 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 1 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 2 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 3 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 4 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 5 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 6 0 R New Treb Cres 7/6/18 49 21 12 1.8 37 67% 49 Number of people waiting 1- Number of people waiting 6- % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Average Vehicle TimeWaiting Empty Vehicle Departures Maximum Maximum passenger wait Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only Maximum Vehicle Waiting No of Vehicle Arrivals Time (for a fare) Time Time in Hour (for a fare) 10 10 mins 5 mins Hour more time Location Date

R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 7 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 8 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 9 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:05:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 10 2 0 00:33:05 00:28:05 00:28:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 11 3 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:21:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 12 2 0 0 2 100% 2 01:14:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 13 2 0 0 3 100% 3 00:26:35 00:24:05 00:24:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 14 1 4 2 2 0 0% 2 00:00:05 00:00:05 00:00:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 15 2 3 2 1.5 0 0% 2 00:07:05 00:07:05 00:14:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 16 3 4 1 4 1 50% 2 00:20:25 00:04:05 00:04:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 17 3 0 0 4 100% 4 00:29:25 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 18 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:02:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 19 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 20 3 0 0 3 100% 3 00:11:45 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 21 0 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 22 2 0 0 2 100% 2 00:02:05 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 23 2 0 0 2 100% 2 00:02:05 R New Treb Cres 10/6/18 0 1 2 1 2 0 0% 1 00:09:05 00:09:05 00:09:05 R New Treb Cres 10/6/18 1 0 R New Treb Cres 10/6/18 2 0 R New Treb Cres 10/6/18 3 0 R New Treb Cres 10/6/18 4 0 R New Treb Cres 10/6/18 5 0 R New Treb Cres 10/6/18 6 1 0 00:49:05 R New Treb Cres 10/6/18 7 0 0 1 100% 1 R New Treb Cres 9/6/18 29 14 7 2 22 75% 29 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R St A Duke St 7/6/18 10 17 9 7 1.3 7 50% 14 00:05:21 00:06:43 00:21:05 00:00:13 00:02:00 1 00:02:00 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 11 10 10 8 1.2 3 27% 11 00:09:05 00:06:55 00:13:05 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 12 11 7 7 1 6 46% 13 00:01:48 00:01:47 00:05:05 00:01:17 00:04:30 1 1 00:06:00 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 13 9 9 6 1.5 1 14% 7 00:11:31 00:12:50 00:31:05 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 14 7 6 6 1 3 33% 9 00:05:56 00:02:20 00:09:05 00:01:30 00:04:30 1 1 00:08:00 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 15 3 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:08:45 00:04:05 00:04:05 00:07:30 00:15:00 1 00:15:00 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 16 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:01:05 00:00:05 00:00:05 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 17 0 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 18 0 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 19 0 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 20 0 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 21 0 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 22 0 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 23 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 0 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 1 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 2 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 3 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 4 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 5 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 6 0 R St A Duke St 7/6/18 59 43 36 1.2 23 39% 59 Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a Number of people waiting 6-10 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Number of people waiting 1-5 % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour Hour a a fare) more mins mins fare) Location Date

R St A Duke St 8/6/18 7 1 0 00:14:05 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 8 3 2 2 1 2 50% 4 00:04:25 00:06:05 00:12:05 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 9 5 0 0 4 100% 4 00:15:17 00:09:05 00:09:05 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 10 11 10 10 1 2 17% 12 00:09:10 00:10:11 00:18:05 00:00:56 00:05:08 1 1 00:06:00 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 11 11 8 7 1.1 3 30% 10 00:04:52 00:04:23 00:13:12 00:03:06 00:04:57 3 2 00:09:29 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 12 11 11 9 1.2 1 10% 10 00:03:05 00:03:17 00:10:12 00:03:19 00:05:13 4 2 1 00:12:13 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 13 8 10 8 1.2 2 20% 10 00:01:44 00:01:43 00:04:09 00:07:15 00:14:31 1 4 00:22:40 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 14 7 3 3 1 2 40% 5 00:08:06 00:10:06 00:35:35 00:10:25 00:10:25 2 00:10:48 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 15 3 3 3 1 2 40% 5 00:04:00 00:04:24 00:04:24 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 16 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 17 1 2 1 2 0 0% 1 00:01:16 00:01:16 00:01:16 00:01:29 00:01:29 2 00:01:29 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 18 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 19 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 20 2 0 0 1 100% 1 00:20:35 00:14:05 00:14:05 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 21 1 1 1 0 0% 1 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 22 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 23 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 0 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 1 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 2 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 3 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 4 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 5 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 6 0 R St A Duke St 8/6/18 63 50 44 1.1 19 30% 63 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for Number of people waiting 1-5 Number of people waiting 6- Maximum VehicleTime Waiting % of% vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) 10 10 mins Hour a a fare) more mins Location Date

R St A Duke St 9/6/18 7 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:00:05 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 8 2 3 2 1.5 0 0% 2 00:10:05 00:10:05 00:12:05 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 9 7 7 5 1.4 2 29% 7 00:09:22 00:10:53 00:14:05 00:00:37 00:05:00 1 00:05:00 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 10 6 2 2 1 1 33% 3 00:26:45 00:30:41 00:48:05 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 11 4 11 7 1.6 0 0% 7 00:09:05 00:09:05 00:20:05 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 12 6 7 6 1.2 0 0% 6 00:11:25 00:11:25 00:17:05 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 13 9 7 6 1.2 0 0% 6 00:06:25 00:06:12 00:16:05 00:01:42 00:12:00 1 00:12:00 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 14 8 10 6 1.7 4 40% 10 00:03:57 00:05:53 00:14:05 00:06:49 00:25:00 3 00:30:00 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 15 4 5 3 1.7 2 40% 5 00:03:20 00:00:05 00:00:05 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 16 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:03:05 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 17 1 3 1 3 0 0% 1 00:00:05 00:00:05 00:00:05 00:15:00 00:15:00 3 00:15:00 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 18 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 19 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 20 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 21 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 22 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 23 2 2 1 2 1 50% 2 00:02:35 00:03:05 00:03:05 R St A Duke St 10/6/18 0 1 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:09:05 00:09:05 00:09:05 R St A Duke St 10/6/18 1 0 R St A Duke St 10/6/18 2 0 R St A Duke St 10/6/18 3 0 R St A Duke St 10/6/18 4 0 R St A Duke St 10/6/18 5 0 R St A Duke St 10/6/18 6 0 R St A Duke St 9/6/18 52 58 40 1.5 12 33% 52 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 10 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 11 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 12 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 13 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 14 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 15 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 16 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 17 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 18 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 19 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 20 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 21 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 22 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 23 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 0 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 1 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 2 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 3 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 4 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 5 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 6 0 R St A New Cr St 7/6/18 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for Number of people waiting 1-5 Number of people waiting 6- Maximum VehicleTime Waiting % of% vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Maximum Maximum passenger wait Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) 10 10 mins Hour a a fare) more mins time Location Date

R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 7 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 8 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 9 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 10 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 11 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 12 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 13 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 14 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 15 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 16 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 17 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 18 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 19 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 20 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 21 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 22 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 23 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 0 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:04:21 00:00:04 00:00:04 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 1 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 2 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 3 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 4 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 5 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 6 0 R St A New Cr St 8/6/18 2 1 1 1 1 50% 2 Number of people waiting 6-10 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for Number of people waiting 1-5 Maximum VehicleTime Waiting Total PassengerTotal Departures of% vehicles leaving empty Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) Hour a a fare) more mins mins Location Date

R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 7 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 8 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 9 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 10 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 11 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 12 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 13 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 14 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 15 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 16 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 17 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 18 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 19 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 20 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 21 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 22 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 23 1 0 00:18:05 R St A New Cr St 10/6/18 0 2 0 0 2 100% 2 00:14:35 00:26:05 00:26:05 R St A New Cr St 10/6/18 1 3 1 1 1 3 75% 4 00:05:05 R St A New Cr St 10/6/18 2 0 R St A New Cr St 10/6/18 3 0 R St A New Cr St 10/6/18 4 0 R St A New Cr St 10/6/18 5 0 R St A New Cr St 10/6/18 6 0 R St A New Cr St 9/6/18 6 1 1 1 5 83% 6 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

R St A Stn P 7/6/18 10 5 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:12:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 11 5 1 1 1 6 86% 7 00:12:41 00:10:05 00:10:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 12 7 6 5 1.2 1 17% 6 00:25:47 00:33:17 00:44:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 13 7 3 2 1.5 4 67% 6 00:12:22 00:16:50 00:23:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 14 6 4 4 1 3 43% 7 00:16:05 00:14:05 00:24:05 00:02:12 00:05:30 1 1 00:08:00 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 15 7 6 5 1.2 0 0% 5 00:11:13 00:09:35 00:19:05 00:01:12 00:03:00 2 00:03:00 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 16 2 3 3 1 2 40% 5 00:16:05 00:09:05 00:09:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 17 6 2 2 1 2 50% 4 00:17:35 00:20:20 00:46:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 18 4 4 3 1.3 2 40% 5 00:33:50 00:48:05 00:56:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 19 4 2 2 1 0 0% 2 00:39:50 00:40:05 01:09:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 20 2 1 1 1 3 75% 4 00:44:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 21 0 0 1 100% 1 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 22 2 0 0 1 100% 1 00:35:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 23 1 0 0 1 100% 1 00:15:05 00:15:05 00:15:05 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 0 5 1 5 0 0% 1 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 1 0 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 2 0 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 3 0 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 4 0 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 5 0 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 6 2 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:41:46 00:37:05 00:37:05 R St A Stn P 7/6/18 60 39 31 1.3 28 48% 59 Number of people waiting 6-10 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for Number of people waiting 1-5 Maximum VehicleTime Waiting Total PassengerTotal Departures % of vehicles leaving empty Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) Hour a a fare) more mins mins Location Date

R St A Stn P 8/6/18 7 3 1 1 1 2 67% 3 00:39:29 00:38:49 01:01:50 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 8 3 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:50:50 00:51:04 00:55:38 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 9 3 2 2 1 2 50% 4 00:32:15 00:38:49 00:53:40 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 10 4 5 2 2.5 2 50% 4 00:36:20 00:31:22 00:31:22 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 11 3 2 2 1 2 50% 4 00:32:46 00:42:39 01:03:02 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 12 2 0 01:19:10 01:08:06 01:08:06 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 13 5 6 3 2 3 50% 6 00:30:55 00:33:22 00:47:18 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 14 8 7 5 1.4 3 38% 8 00:16:14 00:07:39 00:18:27 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 15 3 1 1 1 4 80% 5 00:04:14 00:09:13 00:09:13 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 16 3 2 1 2 1 50% 2 00:06:27 00:05:54 00:05:54 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 17 6 5 3 1.7 2 40% 5 00:13:17 00:04:32 00:09:09 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 18 7 5 4 1.2 2 33% 6 00:28:34 00:30:14 00:44:15 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 19 4 3 2 1.5 4 67% 6 00:14:40 00:13:05 00:14:32 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 20 7 2 1 2 2 67% 3 00:34:16 00:44:21 00:48:20 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 21 6 4 3 1.3 7 70% 10 00:22:23 00:24:56 00:24:56 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 22 3 0 0 3 100% 3 00:17:02 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 23 1 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:19:00 00:19:00 00:19:00 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 0 2 0 00:19:05 00:20:05 00:20:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 1 3 3 1 3 2 67% 3 00:27:45 00:28:35 00:39:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 2 10 30 7 4.3 5 42% 12 00:05:53 00:05:29 00:11:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 3 0 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 4 0 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 5 0 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 6 1 1 1 1 0 0% 1 00:26:05 00:26:05 00:26:05 R St A Stn P 8/6/18 87 81 41 2 47 53% 88 Number of people waiting 6-10 Maximum Maximum passenger wait time Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for Number of people waiting 1-5 Maximum VehicleTime Waiting Total PassengerTotal Departures % of vehicles leaving empty Average Passenger Waiting Average Passenger Waiting Number waiting 11 mins or Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures Time, Time, those waiting only No of Vehicle Arrivals Time Time in Hour (for a fare) Hour a a fare) more mins mins Location Date

R St A Stn P 9/6/18 7 5 2 1 2 1 50% 2 00:43:41 00:21:05 00:21:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 8 2 2 2 1 2 50% 4 00:24:35 00:24:35 00:45:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 9 5 3 2 1.5 2 50% 4 00:42:05 00:24:05 00:29:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 10 1 0 0 1 100% 1 01:58:05 01:58:05 01:58:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 11 4 1 1 1 1 50% 2 00:49:05 00:42:45 01:06:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 12 4 10 4 2.5 0 0% 4 00:32:50 00:31:35 00:46:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 13 7 3 1 3 6 86% 7 00:28:22 00:25:05 00:25:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 14 3 3 2 1.5 3 60% 5 00:33:05 00:33:05 00:44:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 15 6 2 2 1 2 50% 4 00:35:45 00:46:05 01:08:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 16 6 5 5 1 4 44% 9 00:15:25 00:13:05 00:22:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 17 10 3 2 1.5 6 75% 8 00:19:05 00:14:05 00:26:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 18 5 5 4 1.2 2 33% 6 00:25:53 00:15:35 00:31:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 19 5 1 1 1 5 83% 6 00:34:29 00:40:05 00:40:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 20 6 0 0 5 100% 5 00:32:35 00:39:05 00:39:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 21 10 8 3 2.7 8 73% 11 00:09:29 00:08:35 00:11:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 22 9 3 2 1.5 8 80% 10 00:07:17 00:02:02 00:04:05 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 23 5 0 0 5 100% 5 00:06:53 R St A Stn P 10/6/18 0 4 1 1 1 3 75% 4 00:10:20 00:17:05 00:17:05 R St A Stn P 10/6/18 1 6 4 2 2 0 0% 2 00:09:05 00:08:17 00:24:05 R St A Stn P 10/6/18 2 16 45 19 2.4 1 5% 20 00:07:46 00:07:46 00:26:05 R St A Stn P 10/6/18 3 11 21 8 2.6 3 27% 11 00:00:57 00:00:26 00:02:05 R St A Stn P 10/6/18 4 0 R St A Stn P 10/6/18 5 0 R St A Stn P 10/6/18 6 0 R St A Stn P 9/6/18 130 122 62 2 68 52% 130 Number of people waiting 6-10 mins Average Vehicle TimeWaiting (for a fare) Average Passenger Waiting Time in Number of people waiting 1-5 mins Maximum VehicleTime Waiting (for a Average Passenger Waiting Time, Number waiting 11 mins or more Maximum Maximum passenger wait time % % of vehicles leaving empty Total PassengerTotal Departures Loaded VehicleLoaded Departures Average vehicle occupancy Average Vehicle Time Waiting Empty Vehicle Departures Total VehicleTotal Departures No of Vehicle Arrivals those waiting only Hour Hour fare) Location Date

All All 596 1398 1438 884 1.6 514 37% 1398 00:00:34 Q1. Have you used a taxi in this area in the past 3 months? RESTORMEL Total Yes 83 47% 263 39% No 93 53% 413 61% Total 176 100% 676 100%

Q2: How often do you use a taxi within your area of Cornwall? RESTORMEL Total 3 or more times a week 16 9% 36 5% once or twice a week 18 10% 49 7% less than 1/week, but more than 2/month 9 5% 16 2% once or twice a month 17 10% 77 11% less than 1/month, but more than 2/year 11 6% 39 6% once or twice a year 37 21% 237 35% never 68 39% 222 33% Total 176 100% 676 100%

3 or more times a week 20 once or twice a week 4 less than 1/week, but more than 2/month 2 once or twice a month 1 less than 1/month, but more than 2/year 1

Resulting estimate of trips per person per month 2.5 1.7

Q3a: How do you normally get a taxi within your area of Cornwall? RESTORMEL Total At a Taxi rank 61 34% 282 37% Hail in the street 3 2% 7 1% Telephone a company 78 43% 427 56% Use a Freephone 0 0% 3 0% use an app 3 2% 8 1% Other 35 19% 38 5% Total 180 100% 765 100% Q3b: If you indicated 'Other' to Q3a, please specify? RESTORMEL Total I NEVER USE A TAXI 23 72% 23 68% BOOKED BY HOSPITAL STAFF 2 6% 2 6% ASK SIRI 1 3% 1 3% BOOKED BY CARER 1 3% 1 3% CAMPSITE STAFF 1 3% 1 3% CANT REMEMBER 1 3% 1 3% CONTRACT BOOKING 1 3% 1 3% DRIVERS BUSINESS CARDS 0 0% 1 3% EMAIL 1 3% 1 3% PRE-BOOKED 1 3% 1 3% TRAVEL AGENT 0 0% 1 3% Total 32 100% 34 100% Q4. If you book a taxi by phone, please tell us the three companies you RESTORMEL Total phone most? A2B 44 39% 130 25% ABACUS 0 0% 46 9% DROSKYN 0 0% 11 2% RADIO CABS 0 0% 11 2% DONALDS 0 0% 10 2% ATLANTIC 0 0% 8 2% HENRYS 0 0% 6 1% SPIKES 0 0% 6 1% 121 0 0% 5 1% CONNECT 0 0% 5 1% DOR2DOR 0 0% 5 1% PREMIER 0 0% 5 1% GILLS 0 0% 4 1% ABLE 0 0% 3 1% ANSUM CABS 0 0% 3 1% SPOT ON 2 2% 5 1% STAR 2 2% 4 1% DARRENS 0 0% 3 1% WHITE RIVER 0 0% 2 0% C AND C 12 11% 13 2% 123 11 10% 12 2% 10 11 10 9% 11 2% ABC 3 3% 6 1% GREGS 0 0% 2 0% MITCHELL 1 1% 2 0% 111 1 1% 2 0% 181 0 0% 1 0% 313131 0 0% 1 0% ACORN 0 0% 1 0% ADA 0 0% 1 0% APOLLO 0 0% 1 0% ATLAS 0 0% 1 0% BUSY BEES 0 0% 1 0% CENTURY 0 0% 1 0% CHEQUERS 0 0% 1 0% CITY CABS 0 0% 1 0% DAVES 0 0% 1 0% FALMOUTH TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% IVOR MONK 0 0% 1 0% PORTREATH CABS 0 0% 1 0% ST AGNES TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% TEAM GC 0 0% 1 0% TRAVEL 4000 0 0% 1 0% TRURO TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% BOSCAWEN TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% PETES 0 0% 1 0% PATS CABS 0 0% 1 0% PERRANPORTH TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% CARLAS 0 0% 1 0% ACE 4 4% 29 6% HAYLE TAXIS 0 0% 23 4% A1 0 0% 15 3% STONES 0 0% 10 2% L AND M 0 0% 9 2% A CARS 0 0% 6 1% PENZANCE TAXIS (A Cars) 0 0% 10 2% NIPPY TAXIS (A Cars) 0 0% 3 1% PENZANCE TAXI CO (A Cars) 0 0% 4 1% ST ERTH AND HAYLE TAXIS 0 0% 9 2% WEST COAST TAXIS 0 0% 7 1% CARE TAXIS 0 0% 3 1% JOLLY ROGER 0 0% 3 1% 333 333 0 0% 2 0% DJS 0 0% 2 0% R CARS 0 0% 2 0% ROGERS 0 0% 2 0% TREBLE THREE 0 0% 2 0% KERNOW 5 4% 6 1% CHARLIES 0 0% 1 0% FRANKS 0 0% 1 0% JK CABS 0 0% 1 0% JUSTIN TIME 0 0% 1 0% NEWLYN TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% R AND D 0 0% 1 0% TONYS 0 0% 1 0% CAMBOURNE TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% CORNWALL TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% PROWSE 0 0% 1 0% JUST TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% RAINBOW CARS 0 0% 1 0% MENEAGE TAXIS 0 0% 1 0% CARMINOW TAXIS 6 5% 6 1% ST AUSTELL TAXIS 3 3% 3 1% 1234 CABS 1 1% 1 0% CELTIC CARS 1 1% 1 0% FREDS 1 1% 1 0% H'S 1 1% 1 0% KEVS 1 1% 1 0% MIKES 1 1% 1 0% 123 724 1 1% 1 0% QUEENS GARAGE TAXIS 1 1% 1 0% YELLOW CABS 1 1% 1 0% Total 113 100% 521 100% Q5. How often do you use a hackney carriage within your area of CORNWALL? RESTORMEL Total 3 OR MORE TIMES A WEEK 1 1% 10 2% ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK 2 1% 18 3% LESS THAN 1/WEEK, BUT MORE THAN 2/MONTH 3 2% 7 1% ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH 3 2% 35 5% LESS THAN 1/MONTH, BUT MORE THAN 2/YEAR 17 11% 55 8% ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR 41 25% 252 38% I CAN'T REMEMBER LAST TIME I USED ONE 58 36% 246 37% CANT REMEMBER SEEING ONE IN AREA 36 22% 36 5% Total 161 100% 659 100%

3 OR MORE TIMES A WEEK 20 ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK 4 LESS THAN 1/WEEK, BUT MORE THAN 2/MONTH 2 ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH 1 LESS THAN 1/MONTH, BUT MORE THAN 2/YEAR 1

Resulting estimate of trips per person per month 0.3 0.5 Q6a. Please tell us the ranks you are aware of in your area of CORNWALL, RESTORMEL Total and for each if you use them? FALMOUTH THE MOOR 0 0% 70 9% FALMOUTH WETHERSPOONS 0 0% 22 3% TRURO STATION 0 0% 40 5% TRURO LEMON QUAY 0 0% 30 4% TRURO PRINCES STREET 0 0% 31 4% TRURO WAR MEMORIAL 0 0% 23 3% TRURO BOSCAWEN STREET 0 0% 17 2% PERRANPORTH TYWARNHAYLE SQUARE 0 0% 31 4% PERRANPORTH 0 0% 2 0% FALMOUTH CHURCH STREET 0 0% 12 1% FALMOUTH ARWENACK STREET 0 0% 1 0% TRURO VICTORIA SQUARE 0 0% 6 1% FALMOUTH BOSCAWEN ROAD 0 0% 4 0% FALMOUTH STATION 0 0% 4 0% TRURO BUS STATION 0 0% 3 0% TRURO TABERNACLE STREET 0 0% 3 0% TRURO WETHERSPOONS 0 0% 2 0% FALMOUTH MARITIME MUSEUM 0 0% 2 0% FALMOUTH EVENTS SQUARE 0 0% 2 0% FALMOUTH THE GROVE 0 0% 1 0% TRAGO 0 0% 2 0% CORN EXCHANGE 0 0% 1 0% FALMOUTH KILLIGREW STREET 0 0% 1 0% FALMOUTH PRINCES STREET 0 0% 1 0% FALMOUTH QUAYSIDE 0 0% 1 0% FALMOUTH SAINSBURYS 0 0% 1 0% HILL 0 0% 1 0% TRURO 0 0% 1 0% TRURO FLEA MARKET 0 0% 1 0% TRURO GREEN STREET 0 0% 1 0% TRURO MOORFIELDS 0 0% 1 0% PENZANCE STATION 0 0% 88 11% ST IVES DOVE STREET 0 0% 56 7% ST IVES STATION 0 0% 36 4% HAYLE FOUNDARY SQUARE 0 0% 29 4% PENZANCE LLOYDS BANK 0 0% 16 2% PENZANCE BUS STATION 0 0% 14 2% HAYLE MARKET SQUARE 0 0% 13 2% PENZANCE CAUSEWAY HEAD 0 0% 11 1% ST IVES BUS STATION 0 0% 5 1% NEWLYN 0 0% 3 0% PENZANCE GREEN MARKET 0 0% 3 0% PENZANCE MARKET JEW STREET 0 0% 3 0% LELANT BAY STATION 0 0% 2 0% PENZANCE ROUNDHOUSE 0 0% 2 0% ST IVES CINEMA 0 0% 2 0% HAYLE COPPER TERRACE 0 0% 1 0% LONG ROCK 0 0% 1 0% PENRYN 0 0% 1 0% PENZANCE ST MARY STREET 0 0% 1 0% PENZANCE TROPICOSA HEAD 0 0% 1 0% ST ERTH 0 0% 1 0% ST IVES ROYAL SQUARE 0 0% 1 0% ST IVES TREGENNA HILL 0 0% 1 0% CAMBOURNE TREVITHICK ROAD 0 0% 3 0% HELSTON 0 0% 1 0% ST AUSTELL STATION 40 21% 40 5% ST AUSTELL DUKE STREET 39 20% 39 5% NEWQUAY STATION 25 13% 29 4% NEWQUAY SAILORS ARMS 18 9% 18 2% NEWQUAY FORE STREET 6 3% 6 1% NEWQUAY TREBARWITH CRESENT 6 3% 6 1% NEWQUAY BUS STATION 6 3% 6 1% NEWQUAY UPPER TOWN 5 3% 5 1% NEWQUAY AIRPORT 3 2% 4 0% NEWQUAY BEN AND JERRYS 4 2% 4 0% NEWQUAY FRANKIE AND BENNIES 7 4% 7 1% NEWQUAY CLIFF ROAD 4 2% 4 0% NEWQUAY BEACH ROAD 3 2% 3 0% NEWQUAY GOVER LANE 3 2% 3 0% NEWQUAY CHOC BOX 2 1% 2 0% NEWQUAY EAST STREET 2 1% 2 0% NEWQUAY LOWER TOWN 2 1% 2 0% NEWQUAY STATION PARADE 2 1% 2 0% ST AUSTELL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 2 1% 2 0% NEWQUAY SPAR 1 1% 1 0% NEWQUAY KILLACOURT 1 1% 1 0% NEWQUAY POST OFFICE 1 1% 1 0% NEWQUAY FISTRAL CRESENT 1 1% 1 0% NEWQUAY CENTRAL 1 1% 1 0% NEWQUAY TOLCARNE ROAD 1 1% 1 0% NEWQUAY WETHERSPOONS 1 1% 1 0% TREWARREN 1 1% 1 0% ST AUSTELL HOLMBUSH ROAD 3 2% 3 0% ST AUSTELL MARKET HILL 1 1% 1 0% ST AUSTELL WHITE RIVER 1 1% 1 0% Total 192 100% 810 100%

Q6b. If you are aware of a rank in your area of CORNWALL, please tell us RESTORMEL Total if you use it? Use 80 42% 346 43% Don’t Use 112 58% 465 57% Total 192 100% 811 100% Q7. Is there any location your area of CORNWALL where you would like to see a rank, and if it was there and vehicles were available, would you use RESTORMEL Total it? FALMOUTH TRAGO MILLS 0 0% 2 6% TRAGO 0 0% 1 3% FALMOUTH BERKELEY VALE 0 0% 1 3% FALMOUTH EVENTS SQUARE 0 0% 1 3% FALMOUTH STATION 0 0% 1 3% FALMOUTH WOOD LANE 0 0% 1 3% FALMOUTH 0 0% 1 3% TRURO THREEMILESTONE 0 0% 1 3% ST ERTH STATION 0 0% 2 6% PENRYN STATION 0 0% 1 3% PENZANCE PROMENADE 0 0% 1 3% PENZANCE SAINSBURYS 0 0% 1 3% ST IVES ALEXANDER ROAD 0 0% 1 3% ST IVES TOWN CENTRE 0 0% 1 3% ST IVES WHARF ROAD 0 0% 1 3% ST JUST 0 0% 1 3% NEWQUAY BUS STATION 2 13% 2 6% ST AUSTELL SUPERMARKETS 2 13% 2 6% NEWQUAY BEACH ROAD 1 6% 1 3% NEWQUAY COSTA 1 6% 1 3% NEWQUAY CLARKES 1 6% 1 3% NEWQUAY MID TOWN 1 6% 1 3% NEWQUAY TOWN CENTRE 1 6% 1 3% ST AUSTELL ASDA 1 6% 1 3% ST AUSTELL BUSINESS PARK 1 6% 1 3% ST AUSTELL CATTLE MARKET 1 6% 1 3% ST AUSTELL TESCO 1 6% 1 3% ST AUSTELL TRINITY STREET 1 6% 1 3% ST AUSTELL TOWN CENTRE 1 6% 1 3% LOSTWITHIEL 1 6% 1 3% WHEAL LEISURE CAR PARK 0 0% 1 3% Total 16 100% 35 100%

Q8a. Have you had any problems with the hackney carriage service in your area of Cornwall? RESTORMEL Total VEHICLE CLEANLINESS 0 0% 1 3% VEHICLE CONDITION 0 0% 0 0% DRIVER HELPFULNESS 1 10% 4 11% DRIVER STANDARD OF DRESS 0 0% 0 0% DRIVER STANDARD OF HYGIENE 0 0% 1 3% DRIVER PROFFESSIONALISM 0 0% 13 37% DRIVER COMMUNICATION 2 20% 4 11% DRIVER KNOWLEDGE OF AREA 4 40% 4 11% OTHER 3 30% 8 23% Total 10 100% 35 100%

Q8b. If you indicated 'Other' to Q8a, please specify? RESTORMEL Total TAXI DID NOT TURN UP 1 33% 3 38% BAD LANGUAGE 0 0% 1 13% VEHICLE BREAKDOWN 1 33% 1 13% DOGS NOT ALLOWED TO TRAVEL 0 0% 1 13% PUNCTUALITY 1 33% 1 13% DRIVING TOO FAST 0 0% 1 13% Total 3 100% 8 100% Q9a. What would encourage you to use taxis or use them more often in RESTORMEL Total your area of CORNWALL? Better Vehicles 0 0% 2 1% More Hackney Carriages I could phone for… 3 6% 10 4% Better Drivers 0 0% 4 2% More Hackney Carriages I could Hail on the street or get at a Rank 4 7% 13 5% Other 47 87% 215 88% Total 54 100% 244 100%

Q9b. If you indicated 'Other' to Q9a, please specify? RESTORMEL Total CHEAPER FARES 32 70% 192 89% NOTHING 10 22% 10 5% ALLOW DOGS TO TRAVEL 0 0% 2 1% DRUNKENESS 2 4% 2 1% MORE FEMALE DRIVERS 0 0% 2 1% MORE WAV 0 0% 1 0% TAXI VOUCHER SCHEME 0 0% 1 0% UBER APP 0 0% 1 0% CONTACTLESS PAYMENT 0 0% 1 0% RELIABILITY 0 0% 1 0% CONSISTENT PRICING 1 2% 1 0% POLITE DRIVERS 1 2% 1 0% Total 46 100% 215 100% Q10a. Do you consider you, or anyone you know, to have a disability that RESTORMEL Total means you need an adapted vehicle? No 131 80% 558 84% Yes. I need a wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) 4 2% 18 3% Yes. Someone I know need a (WAV) 18 11% 76 11% Yes. I need an adapted vehicle, but not a (WAV) 6 4% 7 1% Yes. Someone I know needs an adapted vehicle, but not a (WAV) 4 2% 4 1% Other 0 0% 0 0% Total 163 100% 663 100%

Q11a. Have you ever given up on waiting for a hackney carriage at a rank RESTORMEL Total in your area of CORNWALL? YES 8 5% 43 6% NO 158 95% 623 94% Total 166 100% 666 100% Q11b. If you have given up waiting for a taxi in your area of CORNWALL, RESTORMEL Total please state where? FALMOUTH THE MOOR 0 0% 6 14% TRURO WAR MEMORIAL 0 0% 4 9% TRURO BOSCAWEN STREET 0 0% 2 5% PERRANPORTH TYWARNHAYLE SQUARE 0 0% 2 5% TRURO STATION 0 0% 2 5% FALMOUTH WETHERSPOONS 0 0% 1 2% PENRYN 0 0% 1 2% PENRYN CAMPUS 0 0% 1 2% TRURO PRINCES STREET 0 0% 1 2% PENZANCE STATION 0 0% 7 16% ST IVES DOVE STREET 0 0% 4 9% NEWLYN 0 0% 1 2% PENZANCE BUS STATION 0 0% 1 2% PENZANCE LLOYDS BANK 0 0% 1 2% ST IVES CINEMA 0 0% 1 2% NEWQUAY SAILORS ARMS 3 38% 3 7% ST AUSTELL DUKE STREET 2 25% 2 5% NEWQUAY STATION 1 13% 1 2% NEWQUAY 1 13% 1 2% ST AUSTELL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 1 13% 1 2% Total 8 100% 43 100%

Q12a. Have you ever given up on waiting for a hackney carriage trying to RESTORMEL Total hail in the street, in your area of CORNWALL? YES 4 2% 9 1% NO 161 98% 656 99% Total 165 100% 665 100% Q12b. If you have given up TRYING TO HAIL a taxi in your area of RESTORMEL Total CORNWALL, please state where? FALMOUTH 0 0% 1 11% TRURO 0 0% 1 11% TRURO STATION 0 0% 1 11% PENRYN 0 0% 1 11% ST IVES 0 0% 1 11% NEWQUAY 2 50% 2 22% ST AUSTELL DUKE STREET 2 50% 2 22% Total 4 100% 9 100%

Q13. If you arrived at a rank and there were saloon and WAV available, which would you choose? RESTORMEL Total THE FIRST ONE AVAILABLE 126 79% 421 64% SALOON STYLE 28 18% 215 33% WHEELCHAIR ACCESIBLE 5 3% 20 3% Total 159 100% 656 100%

Q14. If you chose a vehicle type in Q13 for a specific reason, please tell us RESTORMEL Total why? LEAVE WAVS FOR THOSE THAT NEED 25 78% 202 80% SPEED 0 0% 27 11% BECAUSE I NEED A WAV 0 0% 11 4% EASIEST TO GET INTO 2 6% 3 1% TO LOAD BABY BUGGY 1 3% 3 1% ETIQUETTE 2 6% 2 1% THOUGHT IT WAS LAW TO USE FIRST ONE 2 6% 2 1% I DONT USE WAVS 0 0% 1 0% PARTNER NEEDS WAV 0 0% 1 0% PREFERENCE 0 0% 1 0% Total 32 100% 253 100% Q15a. Do you think there are enough wheelchair accesible hackney RESTORMEL Total carriages in your area of Cornwall? YES 80 48% 168 25% NO, NOT ENOUGH AT RANKS 19 11% 78 12% NO, NOT ENOUGH I CAN GET BY PHONE 5 3% 24 4% NO, NOT ENOUGH THAT SUIT MY REQUIREMENTS 0 0% 2 0% ANY OTHER COMMENT ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY 62 37% 406 60% Total 166 100% 678 100%

Q15b. Other comments? RESTORMEL Total DON’T KNOW 60 36% 399 100% MAKE RANKS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO WHEELCHAIRS 0 0% 1 0% Total 60 36% 400 100%

Q16. Do you have regular access to a car? RESTORMEL Total Yes 114 68% 501 75% No 54 32% 167 25% Total 168 100% 668 100%

Q17a. Do you live in the area? RESTORMEL Total Yes 120 72% 525 79% No 47 28% 141 21% Total 167 100% 666 100% Q17b. IF YOU STATED YOU DO NOT LIVE IN THE AREA, PLEASE RESTORMEL Total PROVIDE THE FIRST HALF OF YOUR POSTCODE? PL26 1 2% 5 4% PL25 1 2% 3 2% TR7 0 0% 3 2% TR13 0 0% 3 2% BS3 0 0% 2 1% CANADA 1 2% 2 1% LL41 2 4% 2 1% PL19 2 4% 2 1% SN3 1 2% 2 1% TA22 2 4% 2 1% TR9 1 2% 2 1% TR12 0 0% 2 1% TR14 1 2% 2 1% TR15 0 0% 2 1% TR21 2 4% 2 1% TR26 2 4% 2 1% B24 1 2% 1 1% B76 0 0% 1 1% BA11 0 0% 1 1% BA15 0 0% 1 1% BE1 0 0% 1 1% BH1 0 0% 1 1% BN2 0 0% 1 1% BS20 1 2% 1 1% BS21 1 2% 1 1% BS30 0 0% 1 1% BS7 0 0% 1 1% CAMBRIDGE 1 2% 1 1% CF23 1 2% 1 1% CF83 0 0% 1 1% CH49 0 0% 1 1% CH63 0 0% 1 1% CM3 0 0% 1 1% CT5 0 0% 1 1% CW15 1 2% 1 1% DA1 0 0% 1 1% DA3 0 0% 1 1% DE45 1 2% 1 1% DE56 1 2% 1 1% DE7 0 0% 1 1% DN11 0 0% 1 1% EH1 1 2% 1 1% EX1 0 0% 1 1% EX12 0 0% 1 1% EX13 0 0% 1 1% EX23 0 0% 1 1% EX31 1 2% 1 1% EX4 0 0% 1 1% FRANCE 0 0% 1 1% G1 1 2% 1 1% G42 0 0% 1 1% GERMANY 0 0% 1 1% GL3 0 0% 1 1% GL50 0 0% 1 1% GR2 0 0% 1 1% GU33 0 0% 1 1% HR4 0 0% 1 1% HU10 1 2% 1 1% IP19 0 0% 1 1% L18 0 0% 1 1% L3 0 0% 1 1% LE7 1 2% 1 1% LOSTWITHIEL 1 2% 1 1% M1 0 0% 1 1% M28 1 2% 1 1% MK11 1 2% 1 1% NG16 0 0% 1 1% NG21 1 2% 1 1% NG26 1 2% 1 1% NP16 0 0% 1 1% NR34 0 0% 1 1% OX28 1 2% 1 1% PE21 1 2% 1 1% PE22 1 2% 1 1% PE7 1 2% 1 1% PL1 1 2% 1 1% PL15 0 0% 1 1% PL31 1 2% 1 1% PL6 0 0% 1 1% PL9 0 0% 1 1% PO20 0 0% 1 1% PR31 0 0% 1 1% RG18 0 0% 1 1% RG22 0 0% 1 1% RH10 0 0% 1 1% SE11 0 0% 1 1% SE18 0 0% 1 1% SG14 0 0% 1 1% SN10 0 0% 1 1% SN21 1 2% 1 1% SO16 0 0% 1 1% SO21 0 0% 1 1% ST3 0 0% 1 1% SY3 0 0% 1 1% SW19 1 2% 1 1% SWITZERLAND 0 0% 1 1% TA9 0 0% 1 1% TENERIFE 1 2% 1 1% TQ14 1 2% 1 1% TQ5 1 2% 1 1% TR11 0 0% 1 1% TR16 0 0% 1 1% TR20 0 0% 1 1% TR24 1 2% 1 1% TR27 0 0% 1 1% TR3 0 0% 1 1% TR4 0 0% 1 1% TR6 0 0% 1 1% UB9 0 0% 1 1% W4 0 0% 1 1% WA6 0 0% 1 1% WS13 0 0% 1 1% WS2 0 0% 1 1% WS6 0 0% 1 1% YO19 0 0% 1 1% Total 46 100% 137 100%

Q18. What is your gender? RESTORMEL Total Census Male 80 47% 293 44% 48% Female 89 53% 376 56% 52% Total 169 100% 669 100%

Q19. Which age bracket do you fall into? RESTORMEL Total Census Under 30 18 11% 71 13% 19% 31 - 55 72 43% 279 50% 35% Over 55 79 47% 206 37% 46% Total 169 100% 556 100%