Coventry Taxi Study Final Report 2013.Doc
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Coventry Taxi Study 2012 / 13 Final Report October 2013 Document Control Sheet BPP 04 F8 Version 14 July 2012 Project: Coventry Taxi Study 2013 Project No: B1294316 Client: Coventry City Council Document Title: Final Report Ref. No: Originated by Checked by Reviewed by Approved by ORIGINAL NAME NAME NAME NAME Geoff Smith Richard Hibbert Geoff Smith Richard Hibbert DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS Document Status REVISION NAME NAME NAME NAME DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS Document Status REVISION NAME NAME NAME NAME DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS Document Status REVISION NAME NAME NAME NAME DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS Document Status REVISION NAME NAME NAME NAME DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS Document Status Jacobs U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document. This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party. Coventry Taxi Study Final Report 2013.doc Executive Summary This study was commissioned to provide evidence for Coventry City Council (CCC) to review their taxi licensing policy on vehicle types and on a number of other taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) licensing issues through consultation with wheelchair users and the taxi trade. CCC currently restricts taxi types to those complying with the London Conditions of Fitness (LCoF), in particular, the ability to U-turn within a 25ft radius. 94.5% of the fleet are the standard ‘black cab’ LTC/LTI TX taxis. 4% are Metrocabs and 1% of the fleet are Mercedes Vito One80 taxis with rear wheel steer to comply with the LCoF requirement for a 25ft turning circle. Comparison of the reference wheelchair standards with the existing and alternative taxi vehicles reveals that, all existing taxis have doorways equal to or greater than the 700mm specified width standard and the Mercedes Vito One80 has the widest doorway. The LTC/LTI TX4 has the highest doorway and the alternative taxis all have doorway heights below the reference wheelchair standard (55mm - 70mm below the specification). Most existing and alternative taxis have internal heights that meet the reference wheelchair standard, with the LTC/LTI TX4 the highest. The Mercedes Vito One80 and Renault Voyager have variable internal heights with at least part below the reference standard specification. Consultation with other taxi licensing authorities revealed some, which did not previously apply the LCoF, already applied a more general requirement that taxis must be wheelchair accessible. Several authorities have relaxed their previous LCoF requirements by licensing additional vehicle types. There has been a significant response to the recent Lunt Case in this respect. The majority of wheelchair users in Coventry have the standard manual chair and are likely to have few difficulties accessing taxis, unless they are particularly tall and have difficulty lowering their head. This was a key accessibility issue identified at the taxi testing event carried out within the study. From the responses to our survey of wheelchair users, we estimate that 20% of users may need to lower their head to enter existing vehicles. However, the doorway headroom of alternative vehicles is not higher than in the existing fleet. It is estimated that around 16% of wheelchair users have a long wheelchair which may not be able to be turned within taxis. They are more likely to be users of powered wheelchairs. Market research was undertaken with both taxi drivers and wheelchair users revealing consistency in the reporting of the occurrences when drivers refused to carry wheelchair users by taxi. 6% of drivers often refuse wheelchairs and 38% of drivers sometimes refuse wheelchairs compares with users reporting that 8% of taxis frequently fail to stop and 22% occasionally fail to stop. Also, the users reported that 7% of taxis often refuse to take them and that 27% occasionally refuse to take them. Analysis of the reasons stated by drivers for refusing wheelchairs suggests that wheelchair types and sizes are key issues. They noted a particular issue with powered wheelchairs. Analysis of the dimensions of wheelchairs in use in Coventry revealed that powered chairs were most likely to have problems due to their height and length. Increasing the fleet range to include larger vehicles might help to increase wheelchair access, however, the alternative taxis are not higher than the Coventry Taxi Study Final Report 2013.doc existing vehicles, therefore it cannot be concluded that increasing the fleet will resolve the problem of users being refused to be carried. Wheelchair users reported that driver behaviour was the main reason for being refused carriage, where 13% stated that the refusal was due to the wheelchair size. They also reported that inability to access the vehicle was due to the wrong vehicle being sent or driver behaviour / vehicle maintenance issues (eg: lack of ramps). Increasing the range and numbers of taxi types, in particular the proportion of Mercedes Vito One80’s, would increase the likelihood that a user could secure their preferred vehicle. There was also consistency between drivers and users in the reporting of problems related to the position of wheelchairs and securing them within the taxi. Drivers reported that 25% of passengers often or sometimes complain about the positioning of the wheelchair in the taxi, which compares with 28% of users stating that they were never or frequently not positioned correctly and 33% stating that they were never or frequently not secured properly. 42% of users were not positioned correctly due to insufficient space, though the majority of reasons relate to driver behaviour and vehicle maintenance issues (such as missing ramps and belts). In addition, 10% of users also stated insufficient space as the reason for not being secured properly. The Mercedes Vito One80 has a larger internal space than the LTC/LTI TX4. Increasing the proportion of Mercedes Vito one80 vehicles in the taxi fleet would improve the likelihood that users get a taxi in which they can be positioned and secured appropriately. Increasing the range of vehicles in the fleet would improve opportunities for wheelchair users to travel facing forward. The taxi testing event held in May 2013 involved four taxis and six wheelchair users. The traditional LTC/LTI TX4 taxi fails to satisfy users only with respect to the ability to position and secure large wheelchairs within the vehicle. Two users that failed to get into the LTC/LTI TX4 and Mercedes Vito one80 taxis also failed to get into the alternative taxis tested. The higher headroom of the LTC/LTI TX4 and lower ramp angle are particular advantages of that vehicle and the traditional ‘black cab’ is very well liked by wheelchair users, most users concluding that they preferred it overall or equally as good as the alternative vehicle-types. Van-based vehicles have the advantage of greater interior space within which to turn wheelchairs and the option of facing forwards as well as backwards in some models. However, users were generally concerned about poor headroom, steeper ramps and the time taken to set up ramps and to secure wheelchairs. There were concerns that belts and fixing equipment may be lost / disgarded and drivers may not be willing to spend time securing them. The Mercedes Vito One80 provides an option for larger wheelchairs / users to specify a vehicle type that they are more likely to be able to turn within and be properly secured. However, they comprise only 1% of the Coventry taxi fleet at present. Assessment of the requirement for a ‘25ft’ turning circle identified a small number of taxi ranks where relaxation of the policy could have potentially adverse safety impacts on sections of key radial streets and/or commercial zones within Coventry.