Luton Unmet Taxi Demand - Final Report

Luton Borough Council Taxi Study
Unmet Taxi Demand Study
Luton Borough Council

December 2008
Project No: 147121

December 2008
10 Eastbourne Terrace,
London,
W2 6LG
Telephone: 020 7053 1300
Fax: 020 7053 1301
Email : London@cbuchanan.co.uk
Prepared by: Approved by:
____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Tim Rains James Jennings
Status: Draft Issue no: 1 Date: 17 December 2008
draft report final 121208.doc
(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin
Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report.
No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it
was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and
diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly
stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has
been made
Contents
Executive Summary 7
1 Introduction 10
1.1 General 10
1.2 Study Aims 10
1.3 Terms used in this report 10
1.4 Defining Significant Unmet Demand 10
1.5 Format of this report 11
2 Background to Taxis in Luton 12
2.1 Current Situation and Previous Findings 12
3 Study Method 13
3.1 Types of survey 13
3.2 Interviews 13
3.3 Rank observations 13
4 Public Interviews 19
4.1 Method 19
4.2 Results 19
4.3 Non Taxi Users 19
4.4 Taxi Users 19
4.5 Hackney Users 22
4.6 PHV Users 32
4.7 All Taxi Users 37
5 Observation Study 39
5.2 Luton Train Station 39
5.3 Wellington Street 42
5.4 Upper George Street 45
5.5 Gordon Street/Manchester Street 48
5.6 Bridge Street/Galaxy 51
5.7 Luton Airport 55
5.8 Luton Airport Parkway Station 58
5.9 Park Street 61
5.10 All Ranks Summary 65
6 Drivers Questionnaire and Stakeholder Consultation 70
6.1 Driver Questionnaire 70
6.2 Results 70
6.3 Stakeholder Consultation 79
7 Impact of Planned Regeneration Projects 81
7.1 Overview 81
7.2 Taxi demand impact 85
7.3 Conclusion 86
8 Conclusions 90
8.1 Public Opinions 90
8.2 Observations 91
8.3 Driver Opinions 93
8.4 The impact of new development on the trade 94
8.5 Overall Conclusions & Recommendations 95
Appendix 96
Tables
Table 3.1: List of Sites 14

Table 4.1: Methods of hiring Hackney carriage 24
Table 7.1: Napier Park approved and proposed developments 84
Table 7.2: Estimated taxi demand (summary) 86
Table 7.3: Taxi demand forecast 88
Figures
Figure 1.1: Percentage of Hackneys & PHVs at ranks through the day. 8
Figure 3.1: Map of Town Centre Sites 14
Figure 3.2: Luton Train Station 15
Figure 3.3: Park Street Feeder 15
Figure 3.4: Park Street Main Rank 16
Figure 3.5: Upper George Street 16
Figure 3.6: Wellington Street 17
Figure 3.7: Bridge Street/Galaxy 17
Figure 3.8: Luton Airport 18
Figure 3.9: Luton Airport Parkway 18
Figure 4.1: Public knowledge of Hackney/PHV Differences. 20
Figure 4.2: Types of taxis used by interviewees in 2006. 21
Figure 4.3: Types of taxis used by interviewees in 2008. 21
Figure 4.4: Hackney carriage use 22
Figure 4.5: Location of pick up of last Hackney trip 23
Figure 4.6: Comparison of percentage of location of last pick up. 23
Figure 4.7: Method of hiring Hackney Carriage on last trip. 24
Figure 4.8: Percentage of recent trips made from rank hirings 25
Figure 4.9: Respondents approximate average wait time for Hackneys. 26
4
Figure 4.10: Average waiting time for all or almost all rank hirings. 27
Figure 4.11: How satisfactory is this wait? 28
Figure 4.12: How convenient are the locations of taxi ranks? 29
Figure 4.13: Average scores for various factors. 30
Figure 4.14: How many times respondents use PHVs. 32
Figure 4.15: Where respondents were picked up on their last trip. 33
Figure 4.16: How did respondents hire this PHV. 34
Figure 4.17: Reasons for choosing PHV over Hackney. 35
Figure 4.18: Average scores out of 10 for PHV users. 36
Figure 4.19: Best statement to describe taxis in Luton. 37
Figure 4.20: Opinions on the location of ranks in Luton. 38
Figure 5.1: Train Station Dwell Times Friday - PHVs 40
Figure 5.2: Train Station Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys 40
Figure 5.3: Train Station Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs 41
Figure 5.4: Train Station Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys 41
Figure 5.5: Wellington Street Dwell Times Friday - PHVs 42
Figure 5.6: Wellington Street Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys 43
Figure 5.7: Split between Hackneys and PHVs at Wellington Street 43
Figure 5.8: Wellington Street Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs 44
Figure 5.9: Wellington Street Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys 44
Figure 5.10: Upper George Street Dwell Time Friday - PHVs 45
Figure 5.11: Upper George Street Dwell Time Friday - Hackneys 46
Figure 5.12: Upper George Street Dwell Time Saturday - PHVs 47
Figure 5.13: Upper George Street Dwell Time Saturday - Hackneys 47
Figure 5.14: Hackney and PHV split over 2 days. 49
Figure 5.15: Gordon St/Manchester St Dwell Times Friday - PHVs 49
Figure 5.16: Gordon St/Manchester St Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys 50
Figure 5.17: Gordon St/Manchester St Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs 50
Figure 5.18: Gordon St/Manchester St Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys 51
Figure 5.19: Bridge Street/Galaxy Dwell Times Friday - PHVs 52
Figure 5.20: Bridge Street/Galaxy Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys 53
Figure 5.21: Hackney & PHV Split at Bridge Street/Galaxy 53
Figure 5.22: Bridge Street/Galaxy Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs 54
Figure 5.23: Bridge Street/Galaxy Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys 54
Figure 5.24: Airport Dwell Times Friday - PHVs 55
Figure 5.25: Airport Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys 56
5
Figure 5.26: Hackney/PHV Split at Airport 56

Figure 5.27: Airport Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs 57
Figure 5.28: Airport Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys 57
Figure 5.29: Luton Parkway Station Dwell Times Friday - PHVs 58
Figure 5.30: Luton Parkway Station Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys 59
Figure 5.31: Luton Parkway Station Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs 60
Figure 5.32: Luton Parkway Station Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys 60
Figure 5.33: Park Street Dwell Times – Friday - PHVs 62
Figure 5.34: Park Street Dwell Times – Friday - Hackneys 62
Figure 5.35: Park Street Dwell Times – Saturday - PHVs 63
Figure 5.36: Park Street Dwell Times – Saturday - Hackneys 64
Figure 5.37: Total PHV/Hackney Split 65
Figure 5.38: Average Hourly Dwell Time by Rank (Friday) - PHVs 66
Figure 5.39: Average Hourly Dwell Time by Rank (Friday) - Hackneys 66
Figure 5.40: Average Hourly Dwell Time by Rank (Saturday) - PHVs 67
Figure 5.41: Average Hourly Dwell Time by Rank (Saturday) - Hackneys 67
Figure 5.42: % of Hackneys and PHVs at ranks through day - Friday 68
Figure 5.43: % of Hackneys and PHVs at ranks through day - Saturday 69
Figure 6.1: Best statement of the number of Hackney licenses. 70
Figure 6.2: Average length of customer wait at busiest times 71
Figure 6.3: Average wait of taxi for fare by rank at the quietest periods 72
Figure 6.4: Reasons for people not being able to find a taxi 73
Figure 6.5: Average number of visits to each rank per day 74
Figure 6.6: Is the size of each rank sufficient? 75
Figure 6.7: Would a practical test be useful for existing drivers? 76
Figure 6.8: Would a practical test be useful for new drivers? 76
Figure 6.9: What is a reasonable figure for the various taxi licenses? 77
Figure 6.10: Age of vehicle 78
Figure 7.1: Key Regeneration projects location 82
Figure 7.2: Butterfield Business Park aerial view 83
Figure 7.3: Napier Park redevelopment plans 84
Figure 8.1: Total Split of Hackneys/PHVs 91
6
Executive Summary
Unmet Demand Study

Colin Buchanan & Partners were commissioned by Luton Borough Council to conduct an unmet taxi
demand study within the town of Luton. The surveys took place between May and September 2008.
Several key elements to the taxi trade were investigated. These consisted of observations of the main
ranks, public consultation, driver consultation, benchmarking Luton against other towns and a brief
look at how the regeneration plans in Luton might affect the taxi trade. This report details the findings
of the study and a separate report provides information on the benchmarking undertaken.
The main aim of this project was to find out if there was any unmet or latent demand for taxis in
Luton. Secondary aims were to assess customer expectations and opinions in relation to the service
provided by taxis in the town and to consult the drivers and other stakeholders about their opinions of
the trade at the present time.
Hackney Driver Questionnaire

Results from the Hackney drivers’ survey (in which there was almost a 40% response rate), via a
questionnaire, were peppered throughout with the issue of the number of PHVs which used the ranks
to drop off fares and illegally tout for business, which we see become an issue in the observation
study. Drivers were also asked questions relating to the amount of time that they, and their
passengers, had to wait at ranks, their opinions on the ranks and how they might be improved, their
opinions on how the Council’s conditions could be improved and a selection of other issues.
The most striking result was that the majority of drivers (65%) felt that most customers have to wait
less than five minutes for a taxi during the busiest times with many stating that customers had to wait
no time at all. It was commented on that drivers often had to wait over 20 minutes to pick up a fare at
each rank during the quietest times, occasionally giving additional comments about the amount of
PHVs being the main cause of this. The survey also showed that drivers generally feel the sizes of
the ranks are either satisfactory or too small but that they are lacking in facilities.
With regard to Council conditions most drivers felt the written test to be satisfactory to ensure a good
standard of drivers (although some stated it was far too easy) and that there is no need to introduce a
practical test for existing drivers. However 50% suggested it would be a good idea to introduce a test
for new drivers. Over half of the drivers believed the disciplinary procedures to be fair but of those
who stated they were unfair comments included that the Council tended to favour the side of the
customer in cases of complaint.
Observation Study
The taxi rank observations were carried out using high mast camera footage which helped to prevent
the drivers from changing their normal patterns once they discovered a survey was taking place.
Public consultation was undertaken using surveys at a number of locations in the town centre over
Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
The rank observations showed that the main ranks (Park Street, Upper George Street, Wellington
Street, Bridge Street/Galaxy, Gordon Street/Manchester Street, Luton Train Station, Luton Airport
Parkway Station and Luton Airport) had taxis waiting for fares for the majority of the time. However,
there were periods of time, for example at around 2pm on Friday, particularly at the airport, where
there were very limited numbers of taxis and small queues of passengers were waiting for Hackneys.
This is a suggestion that at some periods of time, there is a small amount of unmet demand. In terms
of the busiest ranks, the Airport was found to be the busiest location followed by Park Street in the
town centre.
7
One very important observation, however, was that in total, apparently half of the taxis seen were
PHVs plying for hire at the ranks in the town centre – a fact which suggests that there may be unmet
demand for Hackney services, if, for example, the PHVs were to be removed from the town centre
ranks. It was also observed that a large amount of PHV activity took place on Wellington Street. The
amount of illegal plying for hire by PHVs is an area that needs to be addressed because the present
level of PHV activity is, to an extent, hiding the true level of demand for Hackneys.
During night time hours (between 9pm and 4am), perceived to be the peak period for taxi usage,
there was a mix of both Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), though as each night
wore on, the ratio of PHVs to Hackneys steadily grew until around 4am, when there were around 9
PHVs to every Hackney operating at the main ranks – this was particularly noticeable at the night
time ranks near the town centre pubs and clubs. This is best illustrated by the use of the following
figure (1.1), showing the total percentage the type of observed taxis at all the study sites over both
survey days. This figure also highlights the extent of the PHVs illegally using the ranks in Luton.
Figure 1.1: Percentage of Hackneys & PHVs at ranks through the day.
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
% Hackneys
50
% PHVs
40
30
20
10
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
8:
9:
0:
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
0:
1:
2:
3:
0:
1:
2:
3:
4:
-0
-0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
0
0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
00
01
02
03
Time
Public Consultation
The public consultation was undertaken by way of a survey at a number of locations in the town
centre over the course of a Thursday, Friday and Saturday in order to get as many responses as
possible. In total 251 taxi users (those who had used a taxi in the last six months) and 148 non taxi
users (those who had not used a taxi in the last six months) were questioned.
Customers who use taxis were generally satisfied with the service provided, with the majority thinking
there are sufficient taxis to satisfy demand. Over 90% of respondents said that they waited less than
5 minutes for a taxi the last time they took one. Most of the average scores for the factors of service
for Hackneys (such as wait time, helpfulness of driver, and level of local knowledge) were between 6
and 8 out of 10. For PHVs scores out of 10 were an average of 8. Users felt that improvements could
8
be made by reducing prices, having more female drivers and ensuring good standards of English are
spoken by all drivers.
A significant change that supports the theory of there being a small amount of unmet demand is the
public’s perception of the average wait time, in which from 2006 to 2008, there was a reduction of
20% of respondents who felt that they had to wait 1-2 minutes and an increase of 25% of
respondents who felt they had to wait 3-5 minutes.
Around 57% of those public interview respondents whose last PHV trip involved being picked up from
the town centre after shopping, waited for a PHV at a rank. Conversely, of the most recent trips of all
those picked up from the town centre, stations or airport, either after shopping, a night out or for some
other reason, the percentage that were picked up from a rank was 19%, with telephone bookings
accounting for 47%. However, the largest percentage of respondent’s last PHV trip involved being
picked up at home after phoning a private hire company.
There is a small amount of latent demand created by the pricing of taxis. If they were cheaper more
people would use them (though we recognise that it is the taxi trade who decide the prices). However,
the majority of those surveyed who had not used a taxi in the last 6 months stated that they had no
need for a taxi.
Regeneration & Developments

The effect of the planned regeneration of Luton is generally likely to increase the demand for taxis.
On a small scale this could relate to increases in office and business space and on a more large
scale basis relates to hotels and casinos. However, demand is likely to be limited to some extent by
the Busway link (though this is still a some time away and will not have an impact over the next few
years) and the already good service to and from Luton Airport Parkway station. As a result of the
nature of the developments taxi demand is likely to be higher during the evenings and nights.
Whilst most of the developments are still planned, it would be appropriate to mention the current
economic climate, which is both slowing down some developments and also causing some people to
consider alternative methods of transportation. We do not yet know how long the economic downturn
will last, nor it’s effect upon the taxi trade. Nevertheless, it should be considered in the decision
making process on the number of licences.
Recommendations
From our observations we can conclude that there is occasionally some unmet demand, but, for the
majority of time, passengers are almost always able to find a taxi when they need one. However,
when the observations are broken down by type of taxi, it emerges that the PHV trade (through
illegally plying for hire at ranks and near to ranks) is supplementing the Hackney trade to such an
extent that it is masking the real demand for Hackney services.
Given this PHV activity, the development and growth of Luton, as well as the small amounts of unmet
demand that is both visible at some periods of time and hidden at others by PHVs, we would
recommend, in parallel with more stringent enforcement of the illegal plying for hire by PHVs, the
release of around 15 to 20 Hackney licences for the next few years, after which the demand should
be reassessed, allowing for the completion of some developments and hopefully a settling of the
economy as well as more knowledge about the likely effects of the 2012 Olympics on Luton as a
transport hub becoming available.
9
1 Introduction
1.1 General
1.1.1 Colin Buchanan & Partners were commissioned to undertake an unmet taxi demand
study in early to mid 2008. This report presents the survey methods, results and
conclusions from the study.
1.2 Study Aims

1.2.1 The overall aims of this study are to:
- ascertain the current levels of unmet demand, if there is any, from both
existing customers and also potential customers.
- assess customer needs and expectations in relation to quality of service.
- consult groups or persons whom the Hackney Carriage service impacts,
including drivers, the Airport and disabled groups.
1.2.2 The primary aim of the study is to establish whether there is any significant unmet
demand for taxi services in Luton. This refers to both existing users of taxis and potential
users of taxis in the form of patent and latent demand.
1.3 Terms used in this report

1.3.1 The following terms will be used during the course of the report.
- Taxi (s) – Either a Hackney Carriage or a Private Hire Vehicle.
- Hackney Carriage – a Hackney Carriage
- PHV(s) – Private Hire Vehicles
1.4 Defining Significant Unmet Demand

1.4.1 The 1985 Transport Act states that:
“The grant of a licence may be refused for the purposes of limiting the number of
Hackney Carriages…if, but only if, the person authorised to grant licenses is satisfied
that there is no significant demand for the services of Hackney Carriages…that is unmet”
1.4.2 The word unmet does not just simply mean those customers who seek a taxi but can’t
find one, but also those customers who cannot flag a taxi down on the street or arrive at
a taxi rank to find no taxis waiting there. The widely accepted measure of unmet demand
is now the waiting time of those passengers actually served and the waiting time of taxis
before they collect a fare.
1.4.3 The word significant is more difficult to define limits to, particularly when peaks of use at
various times of the day are introduced. In many towns and cities, taxis are the only form
of travelling between an origin and destination at certain times of day, especially during
the night. This is evident in the known demand for taxis late at night at the weekends and
this period is generally recognised as that of the highest demand for taxis. If there is a
high peak in this period, it is not necessarily significant unmet demand, but if there was
an excess of customers to taxis throughout the day, this could be interpreted as
significant. An element of judgement has to be applied to how significant the demand is,
but this can be helped by assessing the supply and demand ratio in relation to how
balanced it is.
10
1.4.4 An additional aspect of unmet demand is latent demand, those potential users who
would like to use a taxi but can’t because of a number of reasons. Some of these
reasons may be:
- accessibility for disabled persons inadequate;
- waiting times;
- the availability of taxis by phone;
- price;
- the availability of other forms of transport;
- safety concerns.
1.4.5 This study and its methods intend to incorporate into them each of these factors in order
to gain an understanding of any unmet demand in Luton.
1.5 Format of this report

1.5.1 This report has been laid out to cover a variety of background information and the results
of the various surveys. It has been laid out as follows.
Section 2 gives a brief background to taxis in Luton, and looks at the number of
licences and previous reports.
Section 3 provides an outline of the methodology used to collect data for use in
this report.
Section 4 presents the results from the public interviews.
Section 5 presents the results from the rank observations, including the dwell time
of taxis.
Section 6 presents the results from the drivers questionnaire.
Section 7 looks at the results of the survey in relation to the current regeneration
plans within Luton and;
Section 8 provides a summary and conclusions.
11
2 Background to Taxis in Luton
2.1 Current Situation and Previous Findings

2.1.1 Currently (at the time the driver questionnaire was sent out) there are 161 Hackney
Carriages and 248 Hackney Carriage drivers licensed by Luton Borough Council (LBC).
There are 193 drivers who possess dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire badges.
From 2005, LBC decided to make available 20 new Hackney Carriage plates per year for
three years.
2.1.2 All Hackney Carriages in Luton are currently accessible for disabled users.
2.1.3 CB completed an unmet demand study for Luton in 2000 and 2006, the latter of which
concluded that there was no significant unmet demand for taxis within Luton.
2.1.4 Luton’s largest ranks are located on Park Street and at the Airport. At both these
locations many taxis are known to wait, often for long periods of time (in the case of the
Airport particularly). It was suggested in both previous studies that drivers waiting at the
Airport were often happy to wait for a long time with a hope of getting a lucrative long
distance fare.
2.1.5 It was noted in previous reports that most Hackney vehicles have two or more drivers,
often operating a shift system through the day.
2.1.6 As with most towns, it is recognised that the night time period is that in which taxis have
to work hardest to fulfil demand, and in the 2000 report, there were indications of some
ranks being oversupplied during the daytime.
2.1.7 The 2006 report states the following as a summary of the findings of the study:
“The results of the observation and interview surveys carried out as part of this study show that there
is no significant unmet demand for taxis, both Hackneys and PHVs, in Luton. At the main Hackney
ranks in Luton at Park Street, Midland Road Station and Luton Airport, there are regularly large
queues of Hackneys waiting extensive periods before collecting a fare. Even at the busiest times at
night outside clubs, there are still often queues of taxis waiting for their fares without there being any
queues of passengers. However, there are occasions where taxis have to work fairly hard to meet
demand, and this is particularly true at night. Findings from the taxi user survey showed that people
are generally satisfied with the service provided by taxi operators in Luton.” (CB, 2006)
2.1.8 During this report we have drawn on the findings of this survey and offered a
comparative analysis of the key features such as dwell times of taxis at ranks, how many
passengers are waiting for taxis and how many taxis use the ranks throughout the day.
We also looked into the differences in public opinion between the 2006 and 2008 studies
and offered comparative analysis between these.
12
3 Study Method
3.1 Types of survey

3.1.1 There are several surveys included in this report, these are:
- rank observations;
- public interviews;
- driver surveys;
- stakeholder consultations.
3.2 Interviews
3.2.1 Interviews with the public were carried out during July 2008, with a view to getting as
many responses as possible. The results are discussed in the following section.
3.2.2 We also completed a postal survey of Hackney Carriage drivers and Dual Licence
holders to gain their opinions about operating issues. The results of which are available
in a later section. We also completed brief consultations with key parties to see if they
had experienced any problems with the taxi trade.
3.3 Rank observations

3.3.1 The rank observations were conducted during May and June in order to gain a complete
understanding of customer and taxi delays, and also supply and demand.
3.3.2 The video surveys were conducted by high mast video cameras, which were placed in
strategic locations throughout Luton. This method was used in order to ensure that the
taxi drivers did not see a survey taking place and change their normal patterns. The
main taxi ranks were covered as well as areas where high levels of taxi activity had been
identified in previous surveys. Figure 3.1 illustrates the locations of the taxi ranks in the
town centre. In addition to this, there is also the airport taxi rank and the rank at Luton
Airport Parkway train station that are of interest to us in this study.
13
Figure 3.1: Map of Town Centre Sites
3.3.3 Table 3.1 shows a list of the taxi ranks that were observed during the course of the
study. It should be noted that a number of locations in the original brief were not
observed. The rank on Bute Street was covered by long term construction works and so
has been disregarded for this study. For the purposes of the results, we have
amalgamated the Park Street rank and feeder with the Church Street rank, as initial
observations showed that they were used as one big rank and feeder, with the rank at
the eastern end of George Street.
Table 3.1: List of Sites
Hours of Observations Hours of Observations

Taxi Rank (Friday) (Saturday)
Park Street + Feeder 7am – 4am 7am – 4am
Luton Railway Station 7am – 1am 7am – 4am
Luton Airport Parkway Station 7am - 3am 7am – 1am
Luton Airport 7am – 2am 7am – 4am
Upper George Street 7am - 4am 7am – 4am
Wellington Street 7am – 3am 7am – 4am
Bridge Street/Galaxy 8pm - 4am 8pm – 4am
Manchester Street/Gordon Street 10pm - 4am 10pm – 4am
3.3.4 The results of the rank observations are available in section 5 of this report.
3.3.5 Shown below are pictures of the taxi ranks.
14
Figure 3.2: Luton Train Station
Figure 3.3: Park Street Feeder
15
Figure 3.4: Park Street Main Rank
Figure 3.5: Upper George Street
16
Figure 3.6: Wellington Street
Figure 3.7: Bridge Street/Galaxy
17
Figure 3.8: Luton Airport
Figure 3.9: Luton Airport Parkway
18
4 Public Interviews
4.1 Method
4.1.1 A series of on street interviews with the public were carried out, with a view of getting
around 300-500 responses from existing and potential customers. The questions were
based on the questionnaire from the previous study in 2006, but there were some
additions in order to capture more opinions in regard to latent demand and customer’s
opinions of service. There were also some subtractions in order to decrease the length
of the questionnaire, to encourage more complete responses.
4.1.2 The questionnaires were conducted in The Mall, on George Street and on Library
Road/Bute Street/Silver Street in order to get maximum footfall and more potential
respondents.
4.1.3 A copy of the questionnaire is provided in the appendix.
4.2 Results
4.2.1 A total of 399 responses were collected, with 251 of these being from taxi users (in this
instance, a taxi user is someone who has used a taxi within Luton in the past 6 months).
4.3 Non Taxi Users

4.3.1 A total of 148 responses were obtained from people who have not used taxis in Luton in
the last 6 months. Two questions were asked in order to establish both why they had not
used taxis and what changes to taxis would make them use taxis in Luton.
4.3.2 Just over 60% of respondents said that they had no need for taxis in Luton, many citing
reasons such as the fact that they walked, took lifts with friends, cycled or used public
transport. 20% said that taxis were too expensive and of these, most of the respondents
said that cheaper taxis would encourage them to use taxis.
4.3.3 Only 3 of the non-taxi users said that there were too few taxis in Luton. However, 17 said
that there were not enough facilities for the disabled. Of the other responses, 3 people
said that they did not feel safe in taxis, and of these, 2 were males.
4.3.4 Of the 60% of respondents who do not need taxis, some could be persuaded to use taxis
more frequently with the lowering of prices (9 respondents), safer vehicles (2
respondents) or safer drivers (4 respondents), however the majority of these would not
use taxis as they do not have any need for them.
4.3.5 These results suggest that there is some latent demand for taxis in Luton, but this is
primarily cost related, and in lowering prices, more people would be encouraged to use
taxis. However, the majority of non taxi users do not have any need for taxis in Luton,
and no changes could be made that would encourage them to use taxis.
4.4 Taxi Users

4.4.1 Of the taxi users, most know that there are differences between Hackneys and PHVs.
The responses varied in detail and correctness, but have been grouped together into
categories shown in the chart below (Figure 4.1).
19
4.4.2 Most people know that there are differences between the two types of taxi, although the
exact differences vary hugely. A large proportion of the responses (around a fifth)
thought that the difference was primarily about the type of vehicle and/or colour of the
vehicle. The largest proportion (almost a quarter) of respondents knew that there was a
difference in hailing Hackneys and having to pre book PHVs. Around 7% of respondents
were aware that one of the differences was that Hackneys have meters, whereas PHVs
do not. Around a fifth of respondents said that the differences were in the price of a trip,
most of these thought that Hackneys were more expensive, but some thought that they
were cheaper, or only more expensive over long distances. 8% of respondents just
answered that “Yes” they did know what the difference was, and 18% didn’t know that
there was any difference.
Figure 4.1: Public knowledge of Hackney/PHV Differences.
Do you know & what are the difference between hackneys and PHVS?
1%
8% 1%
2%
18%
2%
1% Colour & Hailing Difference
5%
Colour & Price Difference
1%
Colour/Vehicle Type Difference
1%
Don't Know
1% Hackney more expensive
Hailing Difference
5%
Meter
Meter & Colour Difference
Meter & Hailing Difference
Meter & Price Difference
18%
No Difference
Other
Other (regulatory)
Price Difference
21% Yes
15%
4.4.3 Please note that if you are looking at this chart in greyscale, the order of the legend is
shown in the chart clockwise from the top. For example, the first “Colour & Hailing
Difference” in the legend is shown at approximately 12 o’clock and is 1% of respondents,
“Colour & Price Difference”, the second category in the legend is shown to the right of
the first category, and is also 1%.
4.4.4 The following two figures (4.2 and 4.3) show the differences in the types of taxis people
used in the 2006 study compared to the 2008 study. The most noticeable difference is a
rise in the percentage of people who have used only PHVs in the last 6 months of 2008
compared to 2006, where a rise of 7% has occurred. A smaller rise of 5% takes place in
those interviewees who only use Hackneys, and overall the percentage of respondents
who have used both has dropped from 2006 to 2008.
20
Figure 4.2: Types of taxis used by interviewees in 2006.
Only Hackney's
14%
Only PHV's
49% Both Hackney's and
PHV's
37%
Figure 4.3: Types of taxis used by interviewees in 2008.
Only Hackneys
Only PHVs 19%
56%
Both Hackney's and
PHV's
25%
21
4.5 Hackney Users

4.5.1 We collected a good cross section of taxi users, from frequent users who get taxis
several times a week to those who only use Hackneys occasionally.
4.5.2 Figure 4.4 shows the cross section of the frequency of use of Hackney Carriages from
the interview respondents.
Figure 4.4: Hackney carriage use
31%
33%
At least once a week

Several times a month
About once a month
Infrequently
12%
24%
4.5.3 63 respondents have used both Hackneys and PHVs, and 48 have used only Hackneys.
This totals 111 people who have used Hackneys in the 2008 questionnaire compared to
41 people that were interviewed in 2006.
4.5.4 Respondents were asked where they were picked up the last time that they used a
Hackney Carriage. Figure 4.5 shows the results from the 2008 survey and figure 4.6
shows a comparison between the same question in the 2006 survey.
4.5.5 The majority of people were picked up by Hackneys either in town after a shopping trip
or similar or in town after a night out sampling the bars and clubs of Luton. 43 people
were picked up after a trip to town, 31 after an evening out and 21 were picked up from
the Airport or railway station.
4.5.6 When comparing the percentages of 2008 pick up locations with 2006, less passengers
were picked up after shopping in town, but more were picked up after a night out. Slightly
less people were picked up from the Airport or station in comparison with 2006.
22
Figure 4.5: Location of pick up of last Hackney trip
Picked up at your home
Picked up after a visit to

hospital, doctor etc.
Picked up from some other
place outside the town centre
Can't remember
Picked up from other premises

in the town centre
Some other type of journey
Picked up in the town centre

after an evening out
Picked up at the station or
airport
Picked up in the town centre
after shopping etc.
Figure 4.6: Comparison of percentage of location of last pick up.
70
60
50
Percentage of respondents (%)
40
2006
2008
30
20
10
0
Picked up at Picked up after Picked up from Can't Picked up from Some other Picked up in Picked up at Picked up in
your home a visit to some other remember other premises type of journey the town the station or the town
hospital, place outside in the town centre after an airport centre after
doctor etc. the town centre evening out shopping etc.
centre
Location of pick up
23
4.5.7 The next question asked was “How did you hire the Hackney cab?” The vast majority of
respondents either hired a taxi from a rank, or flagged one down in the street. Table 4.1
shows the numbers and percentages from the 2006 study and the 2008 study.
Table 4.1: Methods of hiring Hackney carriage

2006 2008
Number % Number %
Regular prearranged booking 0 0.0 3 2.7
Can't remember 0 0.0 1 0.9
Telephoned company 1 2.4 7 6.3
Flagged down in street 5 12.2 22 19.8
Waited at a rank 35 85.4 78 70.3
4.5.8 In both years, over 90% of people’s most recent Hackney carriage trips were hired either
by flagging down the taxis in the street or by hiring from a rank. There has been a rise in
telephone bookings of taxis from 2.4% to 6.3% of the respondents, and also a 2.7% rise
in regular and prearranged bookings in 2008 compared to 2006. Figure 4.7 illustrates
this table as a chart.
Figure 4.7: Method of hiring Hackney Carriage on last trip.
90
80
70
60
Percentage of respondents
50
2006
2008
40
30
20
10
0
Regular prearranged Can't remember Telephoned company Flagged down in street Waited at a rank
booking
How did you hire the Hackney Cab?
4.5.9 A further, more in depth series of questions looks into Hackney hirings from ranks. One
question asks how many of the respondents Hackney hirings were from a rank, and
further questions established their views on the length of waiting time and how
satisfactory they thought this was.
24
4.5.10 Less than 4% of people had no rank hirings, though 2% could not remember. These two
categories were excluded from the questions regarding the length of waiting times.
Figure 4.8 shows the differences between 2006 and 2008.
Figure 4.8: Percentage of recent trips made from rank hirings
50
45
40
35
30
2006
25
2008
20
15
10
0
Can't remember None of them Fewer than half Very few About half of them Most of them All/almost all of
them
How many trips in Hackney's were made from rank hirings?
4.5.11 As shown in the figure above, in 2008, over 45% of respondents hired all or almost all of
the Hackneys they took from a rank, and a further 20% of respondents said that most of
them were rank hirings. Just over 10% of respondents said that fewer than half of their
Hackney hirings were made from a rank. In 2006, just over 40% of respondents said that
all or almost hirings were made from a rank, and 25% said that most of them were made
from a rank.
25
4.5.12 The following questions asked respondents who had hired taxis from ranks a few further
questions, about how long on average did they have to wait, how satisfactory they
thought this wait was and whether the locations of the ranks were convenient. Only
those who had used ranks recently were asked these questions.
4.5.13 Figure 4.9 shows the average lengths of time that respondents had to wait compared to
that of the 2006 responses. The graph clearly shows that whilst there are some
similarities in the average perceived waiting time of respondents, a large increase in the
percentage of people who think they have an average wait of between 3 and 5 minutes
has occurred from 2006 to 2008. This has been coupled mainly with a decrease in the
number of people who think that they wait between 1 and 2 minutes. Generally, the
respondents feel that they are waiting longer on 2008 than 2006, albeit by only a few
minutes.
Figure 4.9: Respondents approximate average wait time for Hackneys.
50
45
40
35
Percenatge of respondents
30
2006
25
2008
20
15
10
0
30 mins 15 mins 5-10 mins 3-5 mins 1-2 mins No wait
Time of average wait for a taxi
26
4.5.14 However, if we look at those respondents in 2008 who said that all or almost all of their
hirings were made from ranks, we see that 42% said that they had no wait, 15% a wait of
1 to 2 minutes, 36% a wait of 3 to 5 minutes, and 6% a wait of 5 to 10 minutes. Figure
4.10 shows this split.
Figure 4.10: Average waiting time for all or almost all rank hirings.
15%
42% 1-2 Minutes

3-5 Minutes
5-10 Minutes
No Wait
37%
6%
27
4.5.15 Whether or not the respondents think that this wait is acceptable was another question.
In 2006 and 2008, the vast majority of respondents thought that this wait was either quite
satisfactory or very satisfactory. In both years, 95% of respondents believed that this
was the case. However, in 2008 we have a seen a downturn in the percentage of
respondents who see this as very satisfactory and an increase in those who think it is
quite satisfactory.
4.5.16 Figure 4.11 shows that in 2006, the percentage of respondents who thought that their
wait was very satisfactory was 72.5%, whereas in 2008 it was 43.8%. In 2006, the
percentage of respondents who thought that their wait was quite satisfactory was 22.5,
whereas in 2008, this percentage was 51.4%. However, of the 5% that either don’t know
if the wait is satisfactory or not, or who think that it was rather or very unsatisfactory,
2008 is a better year than 2006. In 2008, there were no respondents who thought that
their waits were very unsatisfactory, whereas in 2006, 2.5% of respondents thought this.
2.8% of respondents thought that their waits were rather unsatisfactory in 2008.
Figure 4.11: How satisfactory is this wait?
80
70
60
50
2006
40
2008
30
20
10
0
Very unsatisfactory Rather unsatisfactory Neither satisfactory or Quite satisfactory Very satisfactory
unsatisfactory
How satisfactory is the length of wait?
4.5.17 It should also be pointed out, that of those people who have hired all or almost all of their
taxis from ranks, 69% of respondents thought that their waits were very satisfactory and
31% thought that their waits were quite satisfactory.
28
4.5.18 Generally, people are happy with the locations of the ranks. Over 90% of respondents
thought that the ranks were located in a very convenient or quite convenient location.
This compares to 2006, were 90% of respondents thought the same. However, as with
the question of whether the wait was satisfactory, in 2008, there is a reduction of the
percentage of respondents who believe the ranks are located very conveniently, from
62.5% in 2006 to 38.1% in 2008. This is also accompanied with a rise in those who think
that the ranks are located quite conveniently, from 27.5% in 2006 to 52.4% in 2008. On
the whole, the ranks are well located. In 2008, only 6 respondents thought that the ranks
were located rather or very inconveniently. Figure 4.12 shows the comparison between
the years.
Figure 4.12: How convenient are the locations of taxi ranks?
70
60
50
40
2006
2008
30
20
10
0
Neither convenient nor Rather inconvenient Don't know Very inconvenient Quite convenient Very convenient
inconvenient
How convenient are the designated taxi ranks located for you?
29
4.5.19 All Hackney users were asked to give scores out of 10 on a series of factors. These
were:
- Level of fares;
- Comfort;
- Cleanliness of cab;
- Local knowledge;
- Helpfulness of driver;
- Time of wait;
- Standard of driving.
In 2008 additional categories were also added, and these were:
- Loading of luggage;
- Standard of vehicle;
- Accessibility;
- Customer care and complaints.
All the scores given were averaged and are shown in figure 4.13. There are two trend
lines, one is for the averaged responses in 2006, and the other is the averaged
responses for 2008.
Figure 4.13: Average scores for various factors.
12
10
8
Score out of 10
2006
6
2008
0
Level of Comfort Cleanliness Local Helpfulness Time you Standard of Loading of Accessibilty Standard of Customer
fares of cab knowledge of driver wait for cab driving Luggage vehicle care and
complaints
4.5.20 It is clear from the graph that some categories have lower scores than 2006, and some
areas have improved. There were some very low scores for the level of fares in 2008,
with 11 people giving a score of just 1 out of 10. Needless to say, a few of these
respondents gave low scores for each category.
4.5.21 In all categories, the average responses were between about 6 to 8 out of 10, only the
level of fares falls below this. The local knowledge category received a fall of around 2
marks from 2006 when it was close to 10, to 2008 when it is closer to 8. The drivers are,
30
on average, slightly more helpful than in 2006, and the other area that has improved is
the standard of driving, to just over 8 in 2008 compared to just over 7 in 2006.
4.5.22 The new categories also have average marks out of 10 of between 6 and 8, the standard
of vehicle is pushing towards 8 out of 10, whereas the accessibility, despite the fact that
all Hackneys are accessible, gets an average score of 6.4 out of 10.
31
4.6 PHV Users

4.6.1 In total, we interviewed 202 people who had used PHVs in the last six months.
4.6.2 We asked similar questions to PHV users, which included those who used only PHVs
and those who had used both PHVs and Hackneys recently. As with the Hackneys, a
good cross section of PHV users were interviewed, from those who used PHVs just once
a month to those who used PHVs several times a week.
4.6.3 Figure 4.14 shows the cross section of the frequency of use of PHV users. The main
difference between the 2008 and 2006 studies is that in the 2008 study, a significantly
larger percentage of respondents used taxis several times a month, whereas in the 2006
study, more respondents have used PHVs at least once a week.
Figure 4.14: How many times respondents use PHVs.
60
50
40
2006
30
2008
20
10
0
Several times a month About once a month Infrequently At least once a week
32
4.6.4 As with the 2006 study, most respondents in 2008 were picked up by PHVs from their
homes on their last taxi trips, although this has dropped from 76% to 69% between the
years. There was also an increase in people who were picked up from other premises in
the town centre in 2008 and also an increase in the number of respondents whose last
trip in a PHV was made when they were picked up from the town centre after an evening
out. Figure 4.15 shows where respondents were picked up from for their last trips in a
PHV.
Figure 4.15: Where respondents were picked up on their last trip.
80
70
60
percenatge of respondents
50
2006
40
2008
30
20
10
0
Can't Picked up from Picked up after Picked up in Picked up at Picked up from Some other Picked up in Picked up at
remember other premises a visit to the town the station or some other type of journey the town your home
in the town hospital, centre after an airport place outside centre after
centre doctor etc. evening out the town shopping etc.
centre
33
4.6.5 On their last PHV trip, most respondents phoned a company (76%), for some, it was a
regular prearranged booking (12%) and some were even picked up from a rank in town
(7%). Figure 4.16 shows the differences between the respondent’s last trips from the
2006 study compared to the 2008 study. The most noticeable difference is the reduction
in the number of people who phoned the company.
Figure 4.16: How did respondents hire this PHV.
120
100
80
2006
60
2008
40
20
0
Flagged down in street Regular prearranged Can't remember Waited at a rank Booking office Telephoned company
booking
4.6.6 If we look at the location that respondents were picked up and the method of hiring
together, we can see that whilst most people (61%) were picked up at home after
phoning the company, there are other patterns emerging. For example, around 64% of
those who were picked up after shopping in the town centre caught their PHV at a rank
or by flagging it down in the street whereas 29% booked the taxi over the phone. Around
17% of people who caught the PHV after a night out either waited at a rank or hailed it
down in the street, but 52% booked it on the phone. Excluding those who were picked up
from the town centre after a night out, 36% of those picked up from the town centre
either after shopping or for some other reason pre-booked their taxis. 42% of these
either waited at a rank or hailed their PHV from the side of the road.
4.6.7 Excluding those respondents who were picked up at home on their last PHV trip, around
26% of respondent’s last trips in a PHV were hired either from a rank or on the street. If
you include those whose last trips involved being picked up from home, the percentage
of last trips hired from a rank or on street (i.e. illegally) falls to just under 9.5%.
34
4.6.8 PHV users were then asked what their main reason was for choosing a PHV. A large
proportion of responses were because PHVs are cheaper than Hackneys. In fact, over
50% of respondents cited this reason as the main reason why they used PHVs. 17% of
respondents cited that they knew the phone number or company, 11% said it was more
convenient and 5% said that it was because they provided a good service. Figure 4.17
shows a comparison graph between 2006 and 2008. The most noticeable change
between the years is that more respondents are using PHVs because they are cheaper.
Figure 4.17: Reasons for choosing PHV over Hackney.
60
50
40
2006
30
2008
20
10
0
Good Service Other Knew the company and/or Covenience Cheaper
phone number
Reason for using PHV over Hackney
35
4.6.9 We also asked PHV to give marks out of 10 for the following categories, as with the
Hackney users. These were:
- Level of fares;
- Comfort;
- Cleanliness of cab;
- Local knowledge;
- Helpfulness of driver;
- Time of wait;
- Standard of driving.
In 2008 additional categories were also added, and these were:
- Loading of luggage;
- Standard of vehicle;
- Accessibility;
- Customer care and complaints.
4.6.10 Generally, PHV users gave higher scores than Hackney users, and almost every
category showed small improvements. In fact, all categories had average marks of 7 and
above with the exception of accessibility. The only area that had a lower average score
than 2006 was the level of fares, which registered a drop of 0.2 out of 10 from 2006.
Figure 4.18 shows a graph of the average scores for 2006 and 2008.
Figure 4.18: Average scores out of 10 for PHV users.
10
7
Average score out of 10
2006
5
2008
0
Level of Comfort Cleanliness Local Helpfulness Time you Standard of Accessibility Customer Loading of
fares of cab knowledge of driver wait for cab driving Care Luggage
36
4.7 All Taxi Users

4.7.1 All taxi users were then asked which of the following statements best described taxi
services in Luton (Bullets)
-you can always find a Hackney cab when you need one;
-there are plenty of Hackney cabs about, but they are not always in the right
place at the right time;
- it would be better if there were a few more Hackney cabs in Luton;
- there is a real shortage of Hackney cabs in Luton, and many more are
needed;
- there is a shortage at night, but there are plenty around at other times;
- never use Hackneys / no opinion.
4.7.2 The same question was asked in 2006 and Figure 4.19 shows the differences in
responses.
Figure 4.19: Best statement to describe taxis in Luton.
50
45
40
35
30
2006
25
2008
20
15
10
0
There is a real It would be better if There is a shortage at There are plenty of Never use You can always find a
shortage of Hackney there were a few more night, but there are Hackney cabs about, Hackneys/no opinion Hackney cab when
cabs in Luton, and Hackney cabs in Luton plenty around at other but they are not always you need one
many more are times in the right place at the
needed right time
4.7.3 The major difference is a slight drop in the number of respondents who thought that you
can always find a Hackney when you need one. However, there was a rise in those who
said that there were enough taxis in Luton, but they were not always in the right place at
the right time. There was also a rise in the percentage of people who didn’t have any
opinions. Perhaps the most interesting though is a significant drop in the percentage of
people who think that there aren’t enough taxis at night time, in 2006, 6.5% of
respondents said this was the case and in 2008, this had dropped to 1.7%. Most
significantly though, only 1% of respondents thought there were not enough taxis in
Luton.
4.7.4 One of the final questions asked people about the ranks. They were asked which of the
following statements they most agreed with: I think there should be additional taxis in the
37
town centre; those taxi ranks that are in active use are very convenient. There is no need
for any others; Hackneys should serve all the designated ranks in the town centre. If they
did this there would be no need for any new ranks; there are enough ranks during the
daytime, but more are needed at night; never use Hackneys / no opinion. Figure 4.20
shows the responses.
Figure 4.20: Opinions on the location of ranks in Luton.
45
40
35
30
25
2006
2008
20
15
10
0
There are enough ranks Hackneys should serve all I think there should be Never use Hackneys/no Those taxi ranks that are in
during the daytime, but the designated ranks in the additional taxi ranks in the opinion active use are very
more are needed at night town centre. If they did this town centre convenient. There is no
there would be no need for need for any others.
any new ranks.
4.7.5 The most noticeable difference between the years is that more respondents thought that
there was a need for more taxi ranks at night. Almost a third of respondents thought that
there were enough taxi ranks, almost 15% of respondents thought that there should be
additional ranks in the town centre and almost 30% of respondents didn’t have an
opinion.
4.7.6 People were asked if there were any locations that they would like to see more taxi
ranks, and what times they should operate. One of the most common responses was
that they should be 24 hours a day in the town centre. Other responses were: on Chapel
Street/King Street; nearer The Mall; and also outside Luton football ground.
4.7.7 People were finally asked what they would do to improve taxis in Luton. The results
varied greatly, but one of the most common responses was about the cost of taxis being
too much. A few responses had something to do with customer service needing to be
improved, with answers ranging from drivers being able to speak better English, be
tested for drugs, be more knowledgeable about where they are going, have better
appearances, be more helpful with shopping and buggies and also to knock on the door
when they pick you up. Another answer that came up was that more female drivers were
needed.
38
5 Observation Study
5.1.1 The observation study took place over a series of Fridays and Saturdays, which is
deemed to be the time when there is the most demand for taxis. The observation
surveys were conducted by high mast video cameras, which were placed in strategic
locations throughout Luton. The main taxi ranks were covered as well as areas where
high levels of taxi activity had been identified in previous surveys.
5.2 Luton Train Station

5.2.1 The main train station was a busy site on the days of our surveys, and one which always
had taxis present.
5.2.2 The analysis was conducted between 7am and 1am. On Friday, there were 380
observed taxis throughout the day. These were split by 211 Hackneys and 169 PHVs.
The Hackneys picked up a total of 236 passengers whereas the PHVs picked up a total
of 191 passengers. The queue of taxis was usually between 4 and 10 taxis long,
although later at night it reduced to 1 to 3 taxis. The busiest periods (based on the
number of Hackney/PHV visits to the rank) were between 8 and 10am, 4 to 8pm and
9pm to 12am for Hackneys. The busiest periods for PHVs were between 8am and 10am
and also from 4pm until around midnight.
5.2.3 On Friday, there was no time when passengers had to wait for a taxi. Figure 5.1 shows a
graph of the dwell times throughout the day for PHVs and Figure 5.2 shows the dwell
times for Hackneys. The number of Hackneys and PHVs is slightly down on the previous
study in 2006, when 231 Hackneys and 231 PHVs were observed. Compared to the
2006 study, the average dwell time increased on Friday from under 10 minutes to around
14 minutes for both Hackneys and PHVs together. Although there are similarities in the
longest dwell times being around 10am for both years, the 2008 study also has another
peak in mid-afternoon, which was not evident in the 2006 study. This was the period of
time when most of the passenger queues took place in 2006, and this has effectively
been eliminated in 2008.
5.2.4 On Saturday the train station had around 420 taxi trips to it. These were made up of 173
Hackneys and 252 PHVs (though many of these were drop offs – 146 passengers were
dropped off here on Saturday). The average dwell time for Hackneys over the whole day
was 17 minutes, with the average for PHVs being 7 minutes. The hour in which
Hackneys were waiting the longest on average was between 1 and 2pm, where they
waited for 40 minutes for a fare. For PHVs, the average wait at this time was 20 minutes.
The most passengers were picked up between the hours of 6 and 7pm, 52 passengers
were picked up at this time – 28 by PHVs and 24 by Hackneys. Figure 5.3 shows the
dwell times for Saturday for PHVs and figure 5.4 for Hackneys. Please not that in each of
the “dwell time” figures, the dwell time is referred to in minutes.
39
Dwell Time Dwell Time
07 07
:0
:0 0
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
08 :03
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
0 8 3 :1 :5
:0 9 9
09 :34
0 8 0 :0 :2
:3 5 6:
09 58
:4
0 8 0 :0
:4 4 9
10 :57
:1
0 9 8 :2 1
:0 6 11 :44
:0
0 9 5 :5 8
:3 6 12 :36
:1
0 9 6 :1 5
12 :40
Figure 5.2:
Figure 5.1:
:5 6 :5
1 1 5 :5 4
14 :42
:0 0 :0
9
1 2 7 :2 14 :35
:0 7 :5
6
1 3 4 :5 15 :23
:0 7 :3
8
1 4 1 :2 16 :01
:2 7 :2
6:
1 5 3 :5 16 40
:3
:0 8 7
17 :37
1 6 1 :2 :0
:2 5 4
17 :11
1 7 1 :3 :1
:0 8 2:
17 28
:3
1 7 5 :1 9
:4 5 17 :04
:5
1 7 1 :1 7
:5 6 18 :07
:1
1 8 6 :3 1
:1 9 18 :19
:2
6
Time
1 8 1 :4
Time
40
:2 4 18 :23
:3
1 8 5 :4 9
18 :12
:4 1 :5
4
1 9 4 :5 19 :38
:0 5 :2
6
1 9 4 :1 19 :54
:3 2 :3
9
1 9 6 :5 19 :13
:5
:4 2 1
2 0 9 :1 20 :11
:0
:0 9 7
20 :32
2 0 1 :2 :2
:5 0 3
20 :15
2 1 7 :1 :4
Train Station Dwell Times Friday - PHVs
:2 3 4
21 :07
:0
2 1 6 :3 6
:5 6 21 :38
Train Station Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys :2
2 2 8 :0 9
:3 6 22 :02
:1
2 3 3 :5 3
:0 0 22 :19
:3
2 3 1 :2 0
22 :41
:4 2 :4
2 3 0 :3 4
23 :09
:5 4 :1
5:
0 0 4 :2 23 53
:1 9 :4
8: 7:
10 35
Average
Average
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
07
:0
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
07 1:25
:3 07:03:36
08 7:43
:1 08:04:50
09 6:29
:1 08:59:47
09 3:29
:5 09:36:43
10 2:3
09:59:49
:1 4
4
10:29:36
Figure 5.4:
Figure 5.3:
10 :05
:4
11 7:37 11:33:56
:2
12 4:46 12:53:25
:3
13 5:05 13:49:47
:1
5 14:02:55
14 :50
:2
15 :183 14:59:03
:5 15:14:06
16 4:40
:5 15:40:36
17 0:54
:4 16:06:49
2
17 :59
:5 16:24:54
18 :436
:2 16:54:06
18 6:23
17:39:45
Time
41
Time
:5
19 3:52
:2 18:00:50
19 7:22 18:15:23
:5
20 5:1 18:31:53
:3 4
8 18:52:59
21 :29
:1
21 5:23 19:05:25
:3
21 9:59 19:28:58
:5 19:50:14
22 5:49
:2 19:59:52
7
Train Station Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs
22 :49
:5 20:19:32
23 1:02
:1 21:06:20
Train Station Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys
23 0:31
:4 21:50:40
01 8:16 22:25:07
:4
1
02 :09
:2 22:51:38
3:
14 01:29:53
02:33:26
Average
Average
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
5.3 Wellington Street

5.3.1 Wellington Street is a known site of high levels of PHV activity. As a Hackney rank, it is
primarily used as a feeder rank for Upper George Street. The PHV activity occurs mainly
outside Nationwide Building Society at the bottom of Wellington Street.
5.3.2 Wellington Street was surveyed from 7am to 3am the following day on both Friday and
Saturday. On Friday, there were almost 350 observed taxi trips, and most of these were
PHVs, much of the activity took place outside Nationwide. There were 255 PHVs, which
between them picked up 165 passengers. This is compared to 91 Hackneys, which
between them picked up 1 passenger. Though such a small figure for the Hackneys is
mainly because the rank is only used as a feeder for the Upper George Street rank.
5.3.3 The rank’s busiest period was between 4pm and 6pm for PHVs, and between 11am and
1pm and 3pm to 5pm for Hackneys. The longest average dwell time for PHVs was
between 10am and 11am, when the average for the hour was 24 minutes. The average
for the day for PHVs was just under 3 minutes. The average hourly dwell time for
Hackneys was longest between 11am and 12am, though over the whole day, the
average was 6 minutes. Figure 5.5 shows the dwell times through the day for PHVs and
figure 5.6 shows the dwell times through the day for Hackneys.
Figure 5.5: Wellington Street Dwell Times Friday - PHVs
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
Dwell Time
00:43
Average
Dwell Time
00:36
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
07:04:00
09:09:12
09:24:43
10:11:31
10:45:45
11:11:49
11:26:27
12:01:40
12:35:15
13:06:02
13:44:12
14:01:15
14:23:25
14:45:52
15:02:35
15:37:00
16:03:37
16:18:00
16:41:50
17:05:13
17:25:57
17:48:40
18:46:39
19:35:28
20:41:24
21:34:09
23:00:10
00:05:45
00:46:19
01:20:25
01:52:21
02:38:12
Time
42
Figure 5.6: Wellington Street Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
00:43
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
00:36
Average
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
:1 7
:3 8
:0 8
:1 2
:4 5
:5 0
:0 1
:1 1
:3 1
:3 7
:4 9
:0 3
:1 0
:3 1
:3 8
:5 8
:0 1
:1 9
:1 4
:2 7
:3 9
:4 5
:0 5
:1 8
:1 5
:3 9
:3 1
:5 5
:4 4
:5 5
55
1 0 9 :1
1 0 9 :0
1 1 2 :2
1 1 3 :4
1 1 8 :5
1 1 3 :5
1 2 0 :4
1 2 6 :1
1 2 5 :3
1 2 0 :4
1 2 7 :3
1 3 2 :0
1 3 7 :4
1 3 6 :3
1 4 5 :1
1 4 5 :5
1 5 8 :2
1 5 7 :0
1 5 2 :2
1 5 7 :2
1 5 4 :0
1 5 4 :4
1 6 1 :1
1 6 4 :3
1 6 0 :2
1 6 7 :0
1 6 0 :2
1 6 8 :5
1 7 1 :5
1 7 2 :1
5:
:1
09
Time
5.3.4 On Saturday, the average dwell time was just under 4 minutes. The busiest period was
between 12 and 7pm, where on average, around 20 passengers per hour were picked
up. The most taxi trips were made between 2 and 3pm. Most passengers were picked up
after shopping in town, and have bags with them. On both days, there were never any
times when passengers had to wait for taxis.
5.3.5 Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show the dwell times for PHVs and Hackneys on Saturday at
Wellington Street. Figure 5.7 shows the overall percentage split for Hackneys and PHVs
over the course of the 2 survey days.
Figure 5.7: Split between Hackneys and PHVs at Wellington Street
21%
Hackney
PHV
79%
43
07
09 :3
:5
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
4:
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
16 0 9 2 :5
11 :3 6
:2
7: 1 0 0 :0
27
11 :0 4
:3
7: 1 0 9 :5
55
12 :5 4
:1
8: 1 1 4 :2
12 36 :2 0
:4
9: 1 2 4 :0
56 :0 8
12
:5
9: 1 2 3 :3
01 :4 4
13
:1
Figure 5.9:
Figure 5.8:
4: 1 3 7 :2
27 :1 5
13
:2 1 3 3 :3
9:
17 :4 3
13
:3 1 4 2 :2
8:
13
41 :0 8
:5 1 4 7 :3
7:
14 33
:3 9
:0 1 5 6 :1
2: :0 0
57
14
:1 1 5 4 :4
1: :3 7
38
14
:2 1 6 6 :0
4: :1 9
51
14
:3 1 6 4 :3
0: :5 1
13
14
:5 1 7 5 :2
6: :0 8
09
15 1 7 7 :5
:1
9: :3 3
Time
Time
15 12 1 8 4 :5
:2
44
4: :1 6
16
15 1 8 3 :3
:2 :4 6
5:
34
15 1 9 5 :4
:2 :3 3
9:
42
15 2 1 9 :3
:4 :3 6
1:
07
15 2 2 8 :2
:5 :4 6
7:
36 2 3 4 :5
16
:2 :2 0
2:
57 0 0 3 :5
16
:3 :3 1
8:
58 0 1 3 :0
16
:4 :0 8
8:
34 0 1 1 :1
17
:0 :2 5
7:
57 0 1 8 :4
17
:3 :5 1
0:
Wellington Street Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs
23 0 2 4 :1
17 :3 7
:4
2: 0 3 2 :5
39
18 :1 8
:3
Wellington Street Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys
6: 0 3 1 :4
28
03 :4 0
:1 3:
4: 50
15
Average
Average
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
5.4 Upper George Street

5.4.1 The rank located on Upper George Street is situated just around the corner to the west
of Wellington Street. It is the rank that most Hackneys feed into from the Wellington
Street rank. Due to this fact, most Hackneys do not actually pick passengers up from
Wellington Street, but do so instead from Upper George Street, though PHVs pay less
attention to this “unwritten law”.
5.4.2 Upper George Street was surveyed on Friday and Saturday from 7am until 4am the
following day. In total on Friday, 183 people were picked up by Hackneys and 84 people
were picked up by PHVs. There were 130 Hackneys and 115 PHVs who used the rank.
The busiest period at the rank on Friday was between 3 and 4pm, with 41 taxis in total,
made up of 24 Hackneys and 17 PHVs. In terms of Hackney activity, the rank was busy
between 10am and 5pm and then becomes relatively quiet during the night. For PHVs,
there was a peak between roughly 3 and 5pm and then it was used more at night time
(though between 11pm and 2am, there were no passengers who were picked up from
the rank, and 10 taxis were waiting at various times), when most of the Hackneys have
departed – highlighting the supplementary role that the PHVs played during the evening
period. In general, the rank was less busy early in the morning, before 9am and also
between the hours of 7pm and 2am.
5.4.3 Figure 5.10 shows the dwell time through the day for PHVs and figure 5.11 shows the
dwell times through the day for Hackneys.
Figure 5.10: Upper George Street Dwell Time Friday - PHVs
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
00:43 Dwell Time

Dwell Time
Average
00:36
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
:2 2
:4 3
:0 3
:3 3
:3 6
:1 8
:5 5
:0 5
:2 2
:4 5
:5 0
:0 4
:2 4
:4 6
:5 7
:2 6
:0 5
:2 0
:0 4
:2 5
:0 9
:2 0
:0 4
:2 8
:3 6
:3 2
:4 7
:1 9
51
0 9 6 :5
1 0 9 :4
1 1 1 :3
1 1 3 :3
1 2 9 :5
1 4 7 :1
1 4 4 :2
1 5 3 :0
1 5 6 :4
1 5 5 :1
1 5 4 :1
1 6 0 :4
1 6 9 :5
1 6 4 :3
1 7 7 :2
1 8 4 :0
2 0 3 :5
2 0 5 :1
2 1 6 :0
2 1 0 :1
2 2 8 :0
2 2 8 :3
0 1 4 :4
0 1 5 :5
0 2 6 :4
0 2 2 :0
0 2 8 :2
0 3 9 :3
6:
:4
07
Time
45
Figure 5.11: Upper George Street Dwell Time Friday - Hackneys
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
00:43
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
00:36
Average
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
09 :37
10 :30
10 17
11 :04
11 :12
11 :53
11 40
12 :23
12 :58
12 :25
13 44
13 :30
14 :18
14 :33
14 :31
14 35
15 :58
15 :03
15 29
15 :02
16 :07
16 :20
16 :04
17 52
18 :20
00
5:
1:
6:
6:
9:
9:
6:
1
6
:3
:5
:2
:3
:0
:2
:3
:4
:0
:2
:4
:1
:4
:0
:1
:3
:5
:0
:1
:3
:5
:0
:3
:5
:2
:0
09
Time
5.4.4 On Saturday there were 121 observed Hackneys at Upper George Street which picked
up 202 passengers. There were 107 PHVs which picked up 82 passengers and dropped
off 38. For Hackneys, the average dwell time was 7 minutes, and for PHVs, it was just
over 3 and a half minutes. For PHVs, the busiest hour was between 12 and 1pm, when
18 were observed. For Hackneys, it was between 3 and 4pm, when 25 were observed.
The Hackneys generally operated between 11am and 6pm, with only very small
numbers of Hackneys observed outside these hours. Low numbers of PHVs were
observed between 6pm and 12am, but after this, between 5 and 8 PHVs were observed
per hour until 4am, whilst only 2 Hackneys were observed between 9pm and 2am.
5.4.5 Figure 5.12 shows the dwell times for PHVs on Saturday, and Figure 5.13 shows the
dwell times for Hackneys on Saturday.
5.4.6 In the 2006 study, there were 202 taxis (124 Hackneys) which stopped in this location on
Friday and 219 (154 Hackneys) which stopped on Saturday. In 2008, there were 245
taxis using this location on Friday and 228 on Saturday. This increase can be attributed
to the longer period of observation. If we look at the same survey hours, we see that on
Friday there were 183 taxis and 196 taxis on Saturday. Although the number of taxis has
slightly decreased, there has been an increase in the average dwell time of almost a
minute and a half on Friday. On Saturday, there was a slight reduction in the average
dwell time for all taxis.
46
10
:1
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
1 1 0 :4
:0 2 01:12
1 1 2 :4
:1 3
08:20:44
1 1 5 :0 10:05:27
:3 3
1 2 0 :1
:0 5 10:21:47
1 2 1 :2
:1 7 10:54:37
1 2 2 :3
:5 3 11:21:08
Figure 5.13:
Figure 5.12:
1 3 0 :2
:0 6 11:27:37
1 3 2 :1
:1 6
1 3 8 :4 11:42:35
:4 9
1 3 1 :1 12:01:39
:4 9
1 3 5 :4 12:05:17
:5 6
1 4 8 :1 12:09:08
:1 4
1 4 7 :2 12:11:50
:2 3
1 4 6 :0
:4 7 12:44:35
1 4 6 :2
:5 4 13:14:52
1 5 5 :0
:0 0 13:31:46
1 5 9 :4
Time
Time
47
:1 8 14:10:24
1 5 7 :0
:2 8
1 5 2 :0 14:51:47
:2 9
1 5 6 :5 15:12:41
:3 0
1 5 9 :1 16:32:45
:5 6
1 6 0 :2 17:03:14
:1 9
1 6 2 :2
:2 1 17:36:32
1 6 0 :1
:3 4 20:57:17
1 6 2 :3
:5 9 23:04:47
1 6 1 :0
:5 9 01:11:11
1 7 9 :2
:1 6 01:22:13
Upper George Street Dwell Time Saturday - PHVs
1 7 4 :0
:4 1 02:37:06
1 8 4 :3
:1 2
Upper George Street Dwell Time Saturday - Hackneys
0 1 7 :0 02:57:23
:1 9
6:
40 03:11:22
Average
Average
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
5.5 Gordon Street/Manchester Street

5.5.1 This rank operates only in the evening to cater for people going to and from nightclubs
and pubs so this rank was observed between 10pm and 4am. It was a busy rank
throughout the night on Friday, with large queues of PHVs and Hackneys stretching
down the road. For all taxis combined, the average dwell time through the night was 8
minutes 34 seconds, although the maximum was 30 minutes and 23 seconds. There
were also 29 taxis that had a dwell time of less than a minute. Generally, there were
more groups of people using taxis at this time. The busiest hour was between 2 and
3am, with 42 taxis collecting 69 passengers. Even at this time, there was a queue of
taxis between 2 and 5 long. This was a period where the Hackney trade was heavily
supplemented by PHVs. Figure 5.14 shows the percentage split of Hackneys over PHVs
over the course of Friday and Saturday’s observation periods – over 70% of observed
taxis were PHVs.
5.5.2 If we break this down into Hackneys and PHVs, we find that there were 43 observed
Hackneys (collecting 63 passengers) and 93 PHVs (collecting 102 passengers). On
average, the Hackneys waited much longer than the PHVs - 13 minutes compared to 6
minutes. The busiest period, with the most PHVs, was between 2am and 3am. During
this period, the dwell time for Hackneys was over twice the time, on average, as the
dwell time for PHVs. Figure 5.15 shows the dwell times for PHVs and 5.16 shows the
dwell times for Hackneys.
5.5.3 On Saturday, the rank was busier still. Almost 300 taxis were observed, picking up over
400 passengers. These were made up of 212 PHVs picking up 267 passengers and with
an average dwell time of 3½ minutes, and 81 Hackneys picking up 141 passengers with
an average dwell time of 8 minutes 24 seconds.
5.5.4 No passengers had to wait for a taxi for longer than a few minutes, even during the
quieter times earlier in the night when there were no waiting taxis. Figure 5.17 shows the
dwell times through the day for Saturday for PHVs, and Figure 5.18 shows the dwell
times for Hackneys.
48
Dwell Time
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
22:30:43
22:37:30
22:43:38
22:48:13
22:55:48
23:05:09
Figure 5.15:
Figure 5.14:
71%
23:32:18
23:46:22
23:57:01
00:12:51
00:36:50
00:57:35
01:07:09
01:23:22
01:37:28
01:47:56
Time
49
01:59:58
02:02:02
02:06:00
02:16:23
29%
02:19:46
02:21:27
Hackney and PHV split over 2 days.
02:28:43
02:32:51
02:38:30
02:45:57
02:53:19
03:01:59
03:05:30
Gordon St/Manchester St Dwell Times Friday - PHVs
03:10:23
PHV
03:14:52
Hackney
Average
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
Dwell Time 23
:0
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
22 3:
:0 23
03
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
22 0:1 :2
:1 4 1:
50
22 6:5 23
:3 5 :4
7:
23 6:3 30
:0 0 23
:5
23 0:0 3:
:3 3 49
00
:0
23 9:1 1:
:5 3 16
00
Figure 5.17:
Figure 5.16:
00 4:2 :0
:2 2 7:
02
00 5:1 00
:3 1 :0
00 5:5 8:
19
:5 1 00
01 1:3 :1
8:
:0 2 44
00
01 7:2 :3
:1 1 9:
12
01 7:3 00
:3 3 :4
5:
01 4:4 32
01
:5 8 :1
02 1:0 1:
27
:0 2 01
02 5:2 :1
7:
:1 3 12
Time
02 7:2 01
:2
50
Time
:2 1 5:
31
02 8:0 01
:3 9 :3
4:
02 5:1 10
:4 6 01
:4
02 5:4 4:
:5 2 48
01
03 2:5 :5
:0 2 0:
04
03 3:5 02
:1 5 :0
2:
03 0:3 34
02
:1 5 :0
03 9:2 5:
58
:2 7 02
03 6:4 :1
4:
:3 4 02
04
03 5:2 :4
:4 8 2:
59
03 0:2 02
:4 9 :4
6:
03 9:0 38
:5 8 03
6: :1
0:
Gordon St/Manchester St Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs
40 01
Gordon St/Manchester St Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys
Average
Average
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
Figure 5.18: Gordon St/Manchester St Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
00:43
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
00:36
Average
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
23 :00
23 :38
00 28
00 :54
00 :20
00 31
00 :19
00 43
01 :31
01 :11
01 :45
01 :44
01 :00
01 24
01 :06
01 :03
02 :21
02 39
02 :53
02 :58
02 :23
02 :42
03 03
03 :29
03 57
03 :03
46
2:
2:
6:
7:
2:
8:
8:
3:
6
8
7
6
5
5
1
7
8
:3
:1
:4
:1
:1
:3
:4
:5
:5
:0
:2
:3
:3
:4
:5
:5
:5
:0
:1
:3
:3
:4
:5
:1
:1
:3
:4
22
Time
5.5.5 When compared to the results for the 2006 survey, we find similar patterns, with large
numbers of taxis waiting for fares, and no queues of people waiting for taxis. As with the
2006 study, most of the taxi activity here was for pick ups. The average dwell times for
PHVs in 2006 were 4 minutes on Friday and 6 on Saturday. In 208, they were 6 on
Friday and 3½ on Saturday. In 2006, Hackneys had average dwell times of 7 minutes on
both Friday and Saturday, but in 2008, they waited longer, with average times of 13
minutes on Friday and 8 minutes on Saturday.
5.6 Bridge Street/Galaxy

5.6.1 Bridge Street/Galaxy is a private rank where it is known that a lot of taxi activity occurs
during the evening and night time period. A large amount of activity was PHV activity.
There is a five vehicle capacity rank inside the car park, but this was only rarely used,
with the taxis choosing to wait at the kerbside just inside the entrance to the car park,
occasionally extending to the road when their numbers increased.
5.6.2 The site was surveyed from 8pm to 4am the following day, as it was noticed that there
was quite a lot of taxi trade in the evening as well as later at night. Over the 2 days, only
14% of observed taxis were Hackneys. There were 36 Hackneys seen at the rank on
Friday and Saturday and 196 and 244 PHVs on the two days. Compared to the 2006
study, the numbers of Hackneys remain very similar, but the number of PHVs has
increased dramatically – from 129 to 196 on Friday and 155 to 244 on Saturday.
5.6.3 On Friday, for the majority of the evening, PHVs had a low dwell time, often waiting just
a minute or two. However, after approximately midnight, the dwell times increased
sharply to 9 minutes and above on average. This is demonstrated in figure 5.19.
51
Figure 5.19: Bridge Street/Galaxy Dwell Times Friday - PHVs
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
Dwell Time
00:43
Average
Dwell Time
00:36
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
2 0 :0 2
20 58
2 1 :5 7
2 1 :3 3
21 57
2 1 :5 4
2 1 :0 6
2 2 :0 7
2 2 :2 4
2 2 :2 1
2 2 :1 0
:0 0
2 3 :3 0
2 3 :2 6
2 3 :0 5
2 3 :4 6
0 0 :5 6
00 00
0 0 :1 1
0 0 :5 3
00 29
0 1 :3 4
0 1 :4 7
01 52
0 2 :5 9
0 2 :3 9
0 3 5 :1 9
29
2 3 :1
2:
3:
0:
1:
6:
1:
2
5
0
8
3
2
7
5
4
7
7
9
1
3
2
3
3
3
2
6
2
:3
:4
:5
:0
:1
:1
:3
:5
:0
:2
:3
:4
:1
:3
:4
:5
:0
:1
:2
:3
:4
:0
:2
:4
:3
:5
:2
20
Time
5.6.4 For Hackneys on Friday, the average wait time was over 11½ minutes. The maximum
wait was 45 minutes whilst the minimum was just 16 seconds. The longest waits on
average occurred between 9 and 10pm. Figure 5.20 shows the dwell times for Hackneys
on Friday night.
52
Figure 5.20: Bridge Street/Galaxy Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
00:43
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
00:36
Average
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
25
33
48
02
17
37
51
03
45
26
09
51
12
41
57
19
37
10
3:
3:
7:
7:
9:
5:
0:
5:
5:
4:
6:
1:
1:
5:
0:
2:
6:
3:
:1
:3
:4
:5
:1
:4
:0
:1
:2
:3
:3
:5
:1
:2
:3
:4
:5
:2
20
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
00
Time
5.6.5 On Saturday, the PHVs showed a similar pattern to Friday, with relatively short dwell
times until roughly midnight when the length of waits increased. The maximum wait was
45 minutes and the minimum was nothing at all. The most PHVs were observed between
9 and 10pm, when 55 were observed. After 12pm, there was just one Hackney seen at
the rank. The longest wait for Hackneys was 44 minutes, but several Hackneys waited
for a similarly long period of time. Figures 5.22 and 5.23 show the dwell times through
the night for PHVs and Hackneys respectively on Saturday. Figure 5.21 shows the split
of Hackneys and PHVs over the two survey days.
Figure 5.21: Hackney & PHV Split at Bridge Street/Galaxy
14%
Hackney
PHV
86%
53
20
:2
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
5:
45
20 20:29:12
:3
5:
22 20:36:21
20 20:38:06
:5
1:
36 20:47:29
21
:0 20:57:09
2:
18
21 21:03:22
:0
Figure 5.23:
Figure 5.22:
4: 21:09:06
30
21 21:12:48
:0
9:
43 21:21:19
21
:1 21:37:53
3:
36 21:43:21
21
:3 21:50:14
7:
32
21 22:10:01
:5
4:
43 22:20:19
22
:0 22:32:01
8:
09 22:46:21
Time
Time
22
:2 22:58:19
54
1:
29
22 23:10:10
:3
6:
33 23:20:21
22
:4 23:42:26
7:
14 23:59:39
22
:5
7: 00:10:18
21
23 00:24:31
:0
2: 00:39:54
57
23 00:54:18
:1
7:
32 01:18:34
23
:2 01:43:08
5:
13
23 02:12:32
Bridge Street/Galaxy Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs
:5
8: 02:35:11
47
02:57:44
Bridge Street/Galaxy Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys
03:38:24
Average
Average
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
5.7 Luton Airport

th
5.7.1 Luton Airport was the last site to be completed and this was on the weekend of the 13
th
and 14 of June. It was surveyed from 7am until 2am on Friday and 7am until 4am on
Saturday. There were periods during the day when there are lots of taxis waiting for
fares, often for long times, and generally, there was a queue of taxis all through the day.
The Airport had restrictions on where we could put the cameras and had recently
changed the way that the taxi rank and pick up/drop off area was managed. Taxis first
queue around one side of the rank area, then do a loop (as there are so many taxis), and
rejoin the actual rank area. In addition to this, there are often so many taxis waiting in
this rank that they overflow into a secondary area on the other side of the car park.
5.7.2 On Friday there were 394 observed Hackneys and 55 PHVs. For Hackneys the average
dwell time was 34 minutes whereas for PHVs the average dwell time was 39 minutes.
The rank was found to be busy throughout the day, though there were fewer Hackneys
seen between 10am and 2pm. It was between 12 and 2pm that the average dwell time
per hour reduced significantly, from 33 minutes between 11am and 12pm to 14 minutes.
It was also at this time, that small queues of passengers started to develop, and at
several points just after 2pm, there were sometimes no taxis waiting to pick up these
passengers. With the exception of between 7 and 8pm, there were never more than 5
PHVs per hour at the rank. 856 passengers were picked up by Hackneys on Friday and
121 passengers were picked up by PHVs. Between 7 and 8pm, the Hackneys picked up
95 passengers. Figures 5.24 and 5.25 show the dwell times for PHVs and Hackneys
respectively at the Airport rank on Friday.
Figure 5.24: Airport Dwell Times Friday - PHVs
02:52
02:24
01:55
Dwell Time
Average
Dwell Time
01:26
00:57
00:28
00:00
0 7 :0 0
0 8 :0 0
0 9 :2 2
1 0 :4 2
1 1 :1 0
1 2 :3 0
13 06
1 3 :2 0
1 4 :2 9
1 4 :5 9
1 4 :5 5
1 5 :2 8
1 6 :1 4
1 6 :2 0
1 7 :2 4
1 8 :1 1
1 9 :5 9
19 51
1 9 :0 6
1 9 :2 0
2 0 :2 8
2 0 :1 6
2 1 :2 9
2 2 :2 5
2 3 :4 1
2 3 :5 3
0 0 :3 9
41
2:
4:
9:
0
0
5
9
3
6
4
7
1
2
2
0
4
8
8
3
7
4
4
2
2
6
6
3
8
:0
:0
:3
:3
:1
:1
:2
:0
:3
:2
:3
:4
:1
:1
:4
:1
:4
:0
:1
:3
:3
:0
:1
:2
:2
:3
:4
:2
07
Time
55
Figure 5.25: Airport Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys
02:52
02:24
01:55
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
01:26
Average
00:57
00:28
00:00
:1 0
:0 4
:3 7
:4 2
:1 2
:4 1
:5 0
:0 5
:2 8
:3 8
:4 5
:1 5
:1 5
:5 3
:1 4
:3 1
:5 1
:2 9
:5 2
:2 2
:3 9
:1 0
:5 1
:2 8
:4 4
:1 9
:4 5
:2 7
:3 8
:1 5
53
0 7 0 :0
0 8 5 :2
0 8 8 :0
0 9 9 :4
1 0 0 :0
1 1 3 :4
1 2 8 :3
1 4 0 :3
1 4 7 :0
1 4 0 :4
1 4 8 :1
1 5 7 :2
1 6 2 :4
1 6 3 :1
1 7 0 :1
1 7 8 :3
1 7 2 :2
1 8 5 :4
1 8 0 :5
1 9 9 :2
1 9 2 :0
2 0 5 :4
2 0 3 :0
2 1 8 :5
2 1 5 :1
2 2 9 :0
2 2 4 :5
2 3 7 :1
2 3 0 :2
0 0 5 :3
2:
:0
07
time
5.7.3 On Saturday, 386 Hackneys picked up 688 passengers and 111 PHVs picked up 98
passengers and dropped off 104. One of the observations of the airport was that if PHVs
drop people off at the airport, they will sometimes wait there for a fare. The busiest hour
for PHVs in terms of passengers picked up was between 8 and 9am. During this period,
the average wait time for Hackneys was over 2hrs 5 minutes. For Hackneys, the busiest
period was between 1 and 3pm, where 65 passengers were picked up per hour. Figure
5.26 shows the split between Hackneys and PHVs over both days. Figures 5.27 and
5.28 show the dwell times for Hackneys and PHVs on Saturday.
Figure 5.26: Hackney/PHV Split at Airport
18%
Hackney
PHV
82%
56
Dwell Time
00:00
00:28
00:57
01:26
01:55
02:24
02:52
07:00:00 07
:0
07:00:00 0
00:00:00
00:28:48
00:57:36
01:26:24
01:55:12
02:24:00
02:52:48
07 :00
:2
07:55:59 3
08 :43
:0
09:41:22 4
08 :04
:3
10:23:19 0:
08 21
11:58:00 :5
8
09 :01
12:50:06 :0
5
Figure 5.28:
Figure 5.27:
09 :22
13:15:50 :3
2:
09 09
13:54:13 :5
0
14:10:22 10 :28
:1
1:
14:18:45 10 32
:4
6
14:33:35 11 :23
:1
7:
15:10:11 12 21
:2
15:27:55 3
13 :23
:1
16:04:02 3
13 :26
:4
17:05:54 3
14 :34
17:56:36 :1
0
14 :21
18:19:16 :3
57
Time
3:
14 56
19:06:44 :5
15 9:47
19:30:37 :0
7
15 :01
19:59:13 :4
7
20:59:54 17 :22
Airport Taxi Type Hackney

:0
2
21:52:45 17 :35
:4
Airport Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs
0:
22:23:07 18 38
:1
23:02:01 9
19 :32
:0
Airport Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys
23:11:30 4
19 :40
:3
23:43:32 8
21 :16
:2
23:57:13 5:
22 25
00:16:12 :1
4
22 :54
01:04:26 :4
1:
23 00
01:31:17 :5
3:
20
01:53:05
03:01:05
Average
Average
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
5.7.4 Compared to 2006, the Airport rank has relatively similar patterns. The same long
queues of taxis were observed in 2006 as they were in 2008. However, the average
dwell times on Friday were much higher in 2008, and are around 15 minutes higher. On
Saturday, the average dwell times are slightly lower in 2006 than 2008, but they are still
very high – almost 40 minutes. The average dwell times for PHVs were much longer
than in 2006.
5.8 Luton Airport Parkway Station

5.8.1 Luton Airport Parkway Station was observed between the hours of 7am and 3am on
Friday and 7am and 1am on Saturday. On Friday, there were 208 Hackneys and 96
PHVs. The Hackneys picked up 241 passengers whilst the PHVs picked up 110. They
both had very similar average dwell times of around 13½ minutes. The busiest period
for PHVs was between 9 and 10am, where 11 taxis used the rank. The busiest hour for
Hackneys was between 7 and 8pm, when 22 taxis served the rank. The longest wait for
a Hackney was 1 hour and 8 minutes. Figures 5.29 and 5.30 show the dwell times for
PHVs and Hackneys on Friday.
Figure 5.29: Luton Parkway Station Dwell Times Friday - PHVs
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
00:43 Dwell Time

Dwell Time
Average
00:36
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
07:33:22
08:37:18
08:46:34
09:11:52
09:19:34
09:25:52
09:33:56
10:22:34
11:44:17
12:53:58
13:40:45
13:54:38
14:56:56
15:11:50
16:09:30
16:30:43
16:58:09
17:44:26
17:48:28
18:10:20
18:27:07
18:48:30
19:13:02
19:26:54
20:05:05
20:30:17
21:39:35
22:19:58
23:27:30
00:21:27
00:46:54
01:34:08
Time
58
Figure 5.30: Luton Parkway Station Dwell Times Friday - Hackneys
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
00:43
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
00:36
Average
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
:5 0
:3 3
:1 3
:5 1
:3 5
:3 7
:3 4
:4 7
:2 4
:1 1
:5 0
:3 3
:1 8
:4 4
:1 6
:3 5
:4 2
:1 7
:2 8
:4 5
:0 8
:4 3
:0 1
:0 6
:2 4
:5 9
:2 9
:5 7
:0 9
42
0 7 6 :4
0 8 8 :0
0 9 9 :1
0 9 9 :3
1 0 9 :2
1 1 8 :2
1 2 6 :5
1 3 0 :3
1 4 7 :3
1 5 8 :5
1 5 5 :5
1 6 7 :2
1 7 9 :2
1 7 3 :0
1 8 6 :2
1 8 1 :4
1 8 2 :0
1 9 6 :1
1 9 4 :2
1 9 6 :4
2 0 4 :3
2 0 6 :2
2 1 2 :2
2 2 7 :4
2 3 3 :3
2 3 0 :2
0 0 3 :1
0 0 6 :2
0 2 9 :3
1:
:0
07
Time
5.8.2 On Saturday, there were 112 Hackneys and 36 PHVs seen at the rank. The Hackneys
picked up 156 passengers. The average dwell time for Hackneys was 30 minutes, and
the average dwell time for PHVs was 7 minutes. The most Hackneys were seen between
7 and 8pm, when 11 were observed at the rank. Between midnight and 1am, there were
4 taxis with an average dwell time of just 1 minute.
59
Dwell Time Time
07 07
:1 :1
5
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
00:00
00:14
00:28
00:43
00:57
01:12
01:26
07 :40 1:
31
:4
8 07
08 :16 :4
:5 3:
1: 35
09 53 08
:2
4 :4
4:
10 :15
:0 29
4 10
10 :56 :0
:4 0:
1: 08
11 07
Figure 5.32:
Figure 5.31:
:3 10
9 :3
11 :30 9:
:4 18
3: 11
12 02
:5 :3
8 7:
00
14 :41
:0 12
4 :4
14 :01 8:
:2 32
7:
15 40 14
:0 :0
3 5:
15 :12 21
:2 14
0:
15 25 :4
:3 7:
1 12
16 :08 15
:3 :5
8 3:
17 :18 19
:1
2
Time
17
60
17 :10 :0
:4
Dwell Time
3 0:
18 :42 54
:3 17
3: :2
19 07 1:
:0 08
8 17
19 :43
:2 :5
1: 7:
19 19 14
:5 18
0 :3
20 :15 0:
:5 05
3
21 :07 19
:1 :4
9: 9:
21 33 08
:3
1 21
22 :10 :1
:4 4:
2: 27
23 17 22
:0 :3
9 3:
23 :16 49
:5
4: 23
Luton Parkway Station Dwell Times Saturday - PHVs
00 11 :5
:1 6:
0: 12
18
Luton Parkway Station Dwell Times Saturday - Hackneys
Average
Average
Dwell Time
Dwell Time
5.9 Park Street

5.9.1 Park Street is the busiest rank in the town centre. There is a small main rank, which has
enough room for 2 taxis, and then a large feeder which stretches down Park Street.
Occasionally, this feeder was so full with taxis that taxis waited on the other side of the
street in normal parking bays, before joining the feeder. It was only later at night that the
feeder rank becomes less busy. Some taxis left the feeder rank in search of more fares
before they had entered the main rank, and very occasionally, some taxis skipped the
feeder rank and entered the main rank straight away. For the purposes of analysis, those
taxis which use both the feeder rank and main rank and also those which use the main
rank only are shown below.
5.9.2 On Friday there were 448 Hackneys and 334 PHVs that used Park Street main rank on
it’s own or Park Street feeder and main rank. The Hackneys picked up 572 passengers
and the PHVs picked up 301. The average dwell time for the Hackneys was 11½
minutes, whilst for PHVs, it was 8 minutes. The rank is busiest during the day time, with
the hours between 10am and 8pm being consistently busy. The most PHVs in an hour
period was 29 between 7 and 8pm, and the most Hackneys in an hour was 59 between
3 and 4pm. Figures 5.33 and 5.34 show the dwell times for PHVs and Hackneys on
Friday.
5.9.3 The number of Hackneys which used only the feeder rank on Friday was 77. 179 PHVs
used only the feeder rank also. 59 Hackneys did not use the feeder rank and 150 PHVs
did the same, though most of these PHVs (85) were simply dropping passengers off and
not picking people up.
61
Dwell Time
Dwell Time 07
:1
07
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
0 8 8 :0
:4 :5 9
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
09 2:1 1 0 1 :5
:1 3 :1 4
10 1:1 1 0 7 :3
:0 5 :4 8
10 7:4 1 1 7 :0
:3 4 :2 6
10 4:0 1 2 0 :1
:5 1 :0 5
11 0:3 1 2 5 :0
:0 4 :2 9
Figure 5.34:
Figure 5.33:
11 6:1 1 2 3 :3
:2 8 :5 7
11 5:5 1 3 0 :5
:4 9 :1 1
12 7:0 1 3 1 :4
:1 5 :3 3
12 2:0 1 4 6 :2
:5 3 :0 4
13 2:3 1 4 5 :4
:3 7 :2 4
13 1:0 1 4 8 :4
:5 2 :5 1
14 9:1 1 5 4 :4
:1 1 :2 0
14 7:0 1 5 6 :0
:3 3 :5 4
14 7:0 1 6 1 :0
:5 0 :1 3
15 7:4 1 6 1 :2
:1 5 :3 7
15 0:0
Time
1 6 8 :0
62
:2 4
Time
:5 2
15 5:5 1 7 6 :2
:4 4 :1 0
16 5:1 1 7 9 :5
:0 0 :4 1
16 1:2 1 8 1 :4
:2 7 :0 6
16 4:0 1 8 9 :3
:4 0 :3 1
17 4:2 1 9 5 :1
:0 1 :1 4
17 2:5 1 9 0 :3
:3 4 :3 3
17 0:5 1 9 4 :5
Park Street Dwell Times – Friday - PHVs
:5 1 :5 8
18 9:4 2 0 5 :5
:5 8 :4 6
19 0:3
Park Street Dwell Times – Friday - Hackneys
2 1 1 :3
:4 0 :1 8
22 3:1 2 1 4 :4
:2 2 :5 0
23 8:4 2 2 9 :3
:5 5 :4 2
2:
23 0 0 5 :3
:4 0
0 2 0 :0
:4 3
0:
26
Average
Dwell Time
Average
Dwell Time
5.9.4 At the Park Street rank on Saturday, 408 Hackneys were observed which picked up 517
passengers. In addition, there were 321 PHVs which picked up 290 passengers and
dropped off 64. The average dwell time on Saturday for Hackneys was 13 minutes, and
for PHVs, it was 3 minutes. For PHVs, the busiest hour was between 1 and 2pm, when
30 PHVs picked up 39 passengers. However, it was busy throughout the day, and it was
only in the early morning period and 12 and 2am that there were less than 9 taxis per
hour. Between 1 and 2am was also the period when the average dwell time was highest,
at 10 minutes.
5.9.5 For Hackneys the most passengers (66) were collected between 1 and 2pm. Even at this
busy stage, the average dwell time of a Hackney was 6 minutes. The maximum wait
through the day was 58 minutes, whilst the minimum was just a few seconds. Between 2
and 4am, the Hackneys had the lowest average dwell times per hour, between 4 and 5
minutes. At the same time, the PHVs had dwell times of 9 and 7 minutes (however, they
did not pick up many passengers so it could be that these were just parking at the rank
and taking a short break). Figures 5.35 and 5.36 show the dwell times for PHVs and
Hackneys respectively.
5.9.6 On Saturday, there were 63 Hackneys and 139 PHVs that were observed only on the
feeder rank, although between them, they picked up over 100 passengers. On average,
the Hackneys stayed at the feeder rank for 9 minutes, and the PHVs stayed for 13
minutes, which suggests that they either left to look for more fares or were simply using
the rank as an area to take a break.
5.9.7 59 Hackneys went straight to the main rank, and these picked up 41 passengers, whilst
139 PHVs went straight to the main rank and dropped off 58 passengers and collected
75.
Figure 5.35: Park Street Dwell Times – Saturday - PHVs
01:12
01:04
00:57
00:50
00:43 Dwell Time

Dwell Time
Average
00:36
00:28
00:21
00:14
00:07
00:00
07:35:20
08:59:10
10:07:56
10:37:27
11:06:04
11:30:23
11:52:34
12:22:06
12:52:52
13:12:21
13:34:10
13:52:47
14:30:12
14:49:54
15:19:03
15:53:20
16:44:38
17:13:50
17:26:13
17:54:02
18:32:04
19:33:14
20:14:56
20:56:06
21:35:00
21:58:57
22:46:56
23:25:36
00:29:14
02:02:33
02:39:37
03:13:53
03:57:38
Time
63
Dwell Time
00:00
00:07
00:14
00:21
00:28
00:36
00:43
00:50
00:57
01:04
01:12
07:22:32
09:21:26
10:08:53
10:41:56
11:16:52
Figure 5.36:
11:38:32
11:57:12
12:25:17
12:59:39
13:14:27
13:31:24
14:00:11
14:16:36
14:36:36
15:02:34
Time
15:24:06
64
15:45:20
16:14:04
16:42:35
16:59:45
17:22:07
17:44:53
18:09:53
18:38:58
19:49:01
21:26:36
Park Street Dwell Times – Saturday - Hackneys
22:44:12
00:16:52
01:39:04
03:42:59
Average
Dwell Time
5.10 All Ranks Summary

5.10.1 All the ranks in Luton were very well served, by many taxis, both Hackneys and PHVs.
There were times during the day at the various ranks when the taxis do not dwell for a
long period of time, only a few minutes, or even a few seconds, but there were generally
enough taxis in the queue for the fares waiting to be transported to their locations within
a few minutes and once the brief rushes were over, the dwell times for taxis increase
again. One of the key reasons for this is the amount of PHVs plying for hire at ranks, or
waiting just outside ranks for fares. A number of these observed PHVs may have been
pre-booked and simply waiting to pick up their customers, but it is unlikely that this
applies to all of them. The PHVs are supplementing the Hackneys to a high level. The
chart in figure 5.37 shows the amount and percentage of Hackneys and PHVs seen at all
the ranks surveyed over the two survey days.
Figure 5.37: Total PHV/Hackney Split
3104, 47%
Hackneys
PHVs
3528, 53%
5.10.2 The graph in figure 5.38 shows the average dwell times per hour for PHVs for each of
the ranks in Luton on Friday. Figure 5.39 shows the average dwell times Hackneys. It is
clear from this that some ranks have a higher turn around than others. Generally, the
Airport, Parkway train station and Park Street had the highest dwell times, and
Wellington Street and George Street much lower average dwell times.
5.10.3 For Wellington Street, Upper George Street, Galaxy and Gordon Street, the dwell times
are relatively low for PHVs. The Station, Airport & Parkway Station all have relatively
high dwell times.
5.10.4 For Hackneys, the average dwell times per hour follow fairly similar patterns as the
PHVs in terms of the peaks, but the dwell times are generally higher. The Hackney dwell
times are noticeably higher at Wellington Street and Upper George Street as well as at
the night time operating ranks.
65
Average Dwell Time Per Hour Average Dwell Time Per Hour
07
:0
0
00:00:00
00:14:24
00:28:48
00:43:12
00:57:36
01:12:00
01:26:24
01:40:48
01:55:12
02:09:36
02:24:00
00:00:00
00:14:24
00:28:48
00:43:12
00:57:36
01:12:00
01:26:24
01:40:48
01:55:12
02:09:36
02:24:00
08 - 08 07 Ti
:0 :0 :0 m
0 0 0 e
-0
09 - 09
:0 :0
08
:0 8 :0
0 0 0 0
10 - 10 -0
09
:0 :0 :0 9:00
0 0 0
11 - 11 -1
10
:0 :0 :0 0:0
0 0 0 0
-1
Figure 5.39:
Figure 5.38:
12 - 12 11
:0 :0 :0 1:0
0 0 0 0
13 - 13 -1
12
:0 :0 :0 2:0
0 0 0 0
14 - 14 -1
13
:0 :0 :0 3:0
0 0 0 0
15 - 15 -1
14
:0 :0
0 0 :0 4:00
0
16 - 16 -1
15
:0 :0 :0 5:0
0 0 0 0
17 - 17 -1
16
:0 :0 :0 6:0
0 0 0 0
18 - 18 -1
17
:0 :0 :0 7:0
0 0 0 0
19 - 19 -1
18
Time
Time
:0 :0 :0 8:0
0 0 0 0
66
20 - 20 -1
19
:0 :0
0 0 :0 9:00
0
21 - 21 -2
20
:0 :0 :0 0:0
0 0 0 0
22 - 22 -2
21
:0 :0 :0 1:0
0 0 0 0
23 - 23 -2
22
:0 :0 :0 2:0
0 0 0 0
00 - 00 -2
23
:0 :0 :0 3:0
0 0 0 0
01 - 01 -0
:0 :0 00
0 0 :0 0:00
0
02 - 02 -0
:0 :0 01
0 0 :0 1:0
0 0
03 - 03 -0
:0 :0 02
0 0 :0 2:0
-0 0 0
-0
4: 3:
00 00
Average Hourly Dwell Time by Rank (Friday) - PHVs
Average Hourly Dwell Time by Rank (Friday) - Hackneys
Airport
Airport
Station
Galaxy
Station
Galaxy
Park Street
Park Street
Gordon Street
Gordon Street
Parkway Station
Parkway Station
Wellington Street
Wellington Street
Upper Geroge Street
Upper Geroge Street
Average Dwell Time Average Dwell Time
07 07
:0 :0
0 0
00:00
00:14
00:28
00:43
00:57
01:12
01:26
01:40
01:55
02:09
02:24
00:00
00:14
00:28
00:43
00:57
01:12
01:26
01:40
01:55
02:09
08
-0
8: 08
-0
8: 02:24
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-0 -0
09 9: 09 9:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
10 0: 10 0:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
11 1: 11 1:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
12 2: 12 2:
Figure 5.41:
Figure 5.40:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
13 3: 13 3:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
14 4: 14 4:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
15 5: 15 5:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
16 6: 16 6:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
17 7: 17 7:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
18 8: 18 8:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-1 -1
Time
Time
19 9: 19 9:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-2 -2
67
20 0: 20 0:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-2 -2
21 1: 21 1:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-2 -2
22 2: 22 2:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-2 -2
23 3: 23 3:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-0 -0
00 0: 00 0:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-0 -0
01 1: 01 1:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-0 -0
02 2: 02 2:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-0 -0
03 3: 03 3:
:0 00 :0 00
0 0
-0 -0
4: 4:
00 00
Average Hourly Dwell Time by Rank (Saturday) - PHVs
Average Hourly Dwell Time by Rank (Saturday) - Hackneys
Airport
Airport
Station
Station
Galaxy
Galaxy
Park Street
Park Street
Gordon Street
Gordon Street
Parkway Station
Parkway Station
Wellington Street
Wellington Street
Upper George Street

Upper George Street
5.10.5 On Saturday, as with Friday, the airport rank is the rank with the highest dwell times on
average. Wellington Street and Upper George Street both have relatively low average
dwell times, but the Hackney’s average dwell times are noticeably higher than the PHVs.
The dwell times at both stations are also noticeably higher for Hackneys compared to
PHVs.
5.10.6 Night time, which is the supposed peak for taxis was well covered by the taxis available
in Luton, and even at the main night time taxi ranks, taxis were often waiting for long
periods of time before an hourly rush ferrying passengers around Luton. However, there
were sufficient taxis available to limit the queues and waiting time of passengers to very
small amounts of time, and usually, people were picked up as soon as they tried to hire a
taxi. This is due to the high levels of supplementation of the Hackney trade by the PHV
trade at night time in particular. Figure 5.42 below shows the ratios of PHVs and
Hackneys at different times of the day across all the ranks in Luton on Friday. Figure
5.43 shows this for Saturday. On Friday, the percentage of Hackneys is higher until
roughly 8pm, there is a slight increase in Hackneys until 12am followed by a sharp drop
off. Between 3 and 4am, almost 95% of the taxis operating in Luton are PHVs.
Figure 5.42: % of Hackneys and PHVs at ranks through day - Friday
100
90
80
70
% of Hackneys/PHVs
60
% Hackneys
50
% PHVs
40
30
20
10
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
8:
9:
0:
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
0:
1:
2:
3:
0:
1:
2:
3:
4:
-0
-0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
0
0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
00
01
02
03
Time
68
Figure 5.43: % of Hackneys and PHVs at ranks through day - Saturday
90
80
70
Percentage of Hackneys/ PHVs
60
50
% Hackneys
% PHVs
40
30
20
10
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
8:
9:
0:
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
0:
1:
2:
3:
0:
1:
2:
3:
4:
-0
-0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
0
0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
00
01
02
03
Time
5.10.7 As seen in the chart above, like Friday, the ratio of PHVs compared to Hackneys
increase at night time, reaching a peak between 3 and 4am of 80% PHVs. The middle
period of the day saw an increase in Hackneys, between roughly 12 and 5pm, but even
in the morning between 8am and 11am, there was a higher percentage of PHVs
operating than Hackneys.
5.10.8 On all of the days of surveys, there were a periods when a few people were waiting to
get a taxi, but for the majority of time, people were able to get a taxi. However, the
number of PHVs illegally plying for hire and using the ranks in Luton is very high and is a
factor that skews the results that are seen in terms of the length of wait for taxis. If there
were less PHVs plying for hire illegally, the Hackney trade would be placed under more
stress, particularly at night time. If for example, the PHVs were taken entirely out of
action, the demand on Hackneys would greatly increase. As a rough guide, based on the
percentages shown in figure 5.42, the number of Hackney trips would need to increase
by a third of their current size during the day, and up to 17 or 18 times during the
evening period. This would clearly cause a certain amount of unmet demand in the town
– especially at night time.
69
6 Drivers Questionnaire and Stakeholder

Consultation
6.1 Driver Questionnaire

6.1.1 A postal survey of Hackney drivers and dual license holders was conducted, with 441
surveys being sent out. The drivers were first given 2 weeks to complete the interviews
before a further batch of interviews were sent out giving them an additional week. The
questionnaire is available in the appendix.
6.1.2 In total, when the analysis below was completed, 171 interviews had been returned.
6.2 Results
6.2.1 The first question that was asked of the license holders was which of the below
statements best described the number of Hackney Carriage licenses in Luton. Figure 6.1
below shows the percentages of respondents who agree with each of the statements.
- There are too many;
- There are enough Hackneys;
- 1-10 more licenses are required;
- 11-20 more licenses are required;
- 21+ licenses are required.
Figure 6.1: Best statement of the number of Hackney licenses.
1%
8%
2%
1%
There are too many

There are enough Hackneys
23%
1-10 more licenses are required
11-20 more licenses are required
21 or more licenses are required
No answer
65%
70
6.2.2 As seen in the above chart, around two-thirds of respondents think that there are too
many Hackneys at the moment. A further 23% of respondents think that there are
enough taxis. Even this first question suggests to us that the drivers themselves believe
that there is more supply than demand at present in Luton.
6.2.3 The busiest times are generally the AM peak, Fridays (particularly around prayer time),
and the weekend evenings, although for different drivers there are many different times,
some saying the evening periods, some saying the weekdays, and some saying around
school time.
6.2.4 The quietest times suggested were generally either Sundays, the middle of the
weekdays or, in quite a lot of cases either “all the time” or “the rest of the time” (in
reference to the busiest times).
6.2.5 The drivers were asked how long, on average, do passengers have to wait for a taxi at
each of the main ranks in Luton at the busiest times. Figure 6.2 shows the results for
each rank, with the percentage of responses for each rank shown.
Figure 6.2: Average length of customer wait at busiest times
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0 Luton Train Station

% of Respondents
Upper George Street

Gordon Street/Manchester Street
40.0 Bridge Street/Galaxy
Luton Airport Parkway
Luton Airport
30.0 Park Street
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 - 5 mins 5 - 10 mins 10 - 15 mins 20 + mins No answer
Average time of Customer Wait
6.2.6 The above graph clearly shows that the vast majority of drivers think that at the busiest
times, customers do not have to wait for longer than 5 minutes. It should also be noted at
this point, that there were many responses that specifically said 0 minutes. Some drivers
could not respond to certain ranks as they do not use them.
6.2.7 In parallel to this, the drivers were asked how long on average, at the quietest times,
drivers had to wait to pick up a fare at the various ranks. As we would expect, the
majority of responses were 20 or more minutes. There were many occasions on this
question where the drivers responded that they had to wait sometimes up to 5hrs (in the
example of the Airport) to get a fare. Almost every rank had some drivers who said that
71
on average they waited not just 20 minutes, but 30, 40 and sometimes 80 minutes for a
fare.
6.2.8 The graph shown in Figure 6.3 shows the results of this question, with the percentage of
respondents for each rank. For every rank, almost 80% of respondents thought that they
had to wait at least 20 minutes for a fare at the quietest times. When looking at the
average wait for all the ranks combined, less than 10% of respondents thought that they
had to wait less than 15 minutes.
Figure 6.3: Average wait of taxi for fare by rank at the quietest periods
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
Luton Train Station
% of Respondents
Upper George Street

50.0
Gordon Street/Manchester Street
Bridge Street/Galaxy
Luton Airport Parkway
40.0
Luton Airport
Park Street
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 - 5 mins 5 - 10 mins 10 - 15 mins 20 + mins No answer
Average Length of Taxi Wait
72
6.2.9 The drivers were asked what, if any, were the main causes of people not being able to
find taxis at the busiest times. Almost two-thirds of people think that it is not a significant
problem, or going by some comments, not a problem at all. Only 4% of respondents
think that this is because there are too few Hackneys in the town. 2% think that there are
too many late license premises in the town centre and 6% think that it is caused by a
lack of willingness to work at night by drivers. The chart in figure 6.4 shows the split.
6.2.10 There were 16% of responses who said other as their response. These responses were
varied as to the reasons, but herewith lies a brief summary of them. A significant number
of the “other” responses, around 12, said that there was no problem at all, some of them
stating that there were too many taxis or that taxis were available all the time. A few
drivers brought up the competition between Hackneys and PHVs, saying that PHVs were
always waiting at ranks to illegally ply for hire. Others touched on the fact that the traffic
is so bad that it is difficult to access ranks. One driver noted that it is not normally a
problem unless there are delays on planes or trains.
Figure 6.4: Reasons for people not being able to find a taxi
5% 6%
4%
2%
16%
Lack of willingness to work at nights from licensed

drivers
Too Few Hackney Carriages
3% Too many late licensed premises in town
Not a significant problem
Not a significant problem & Other
Other
No Answer
64%
73
6.2.11 The following chart shows the average number of times that they visited each rank in a
day. It should be noted that many drivers did not answer this question at all and many
did not answer fore certain ranks. The chart in Figure 6.5 shows the averages for the
responses that were received. Park Street and the train station rank are the most
popular ranks, with Luton Airport having the least visits on average (for the day time
ranks) and the night time ranks of Gordon Street/Manchester Street and Bridge
Street/Galaxy having the least visits on average overall.
Figure 6.5: Average number of visits to each rank per day
5
Average Number of Visits per Taxi per Day
0
Train Station Upper George Street Gordon Bridge Street Luton Airport Station Luton Airpotrt Park Stret
Street/Manchester
Street
Rank
6.2.12 It is also important to get driver’s views about the taxi ranks in the town, and an
important factor is whether they think that the size of each of them is sufficient. Figure
6.6 shows the responses per rank. Wellington Street, Upper George Street and Gordon
Street/Manchester Street are all deemed to be too small by the vast majority of drivers.
Just over half of drivers think that Bridge Street/Galaxy is too small, but around a third
think that it is sufficient. A third of drivers think that the train station rank is too small, but
almost 60% think that it is a sufficient size. At Luton Airport and Luton Airport Parkway,
around 40% of drivers think that they are too small, and around 40% of drivers think that
they are sufficient. At Park Street, just over half think that it is sufficient and around 40%
think that it is too small. Very few respondents thought that any rank was too large.
6.2.13 Of the suggested locations for additional taxi facilities, the most common site was on
Chapel Street. 94 drivers said that this would be a location that they would like to see
additional facilities. 25 drivers suggested Midland Road or outside Charlie Brown’s. A
few drivers suggested additional facilities on Manchester Street and a few drivers
suggested additional facilities near to the site that Pound Stretcher once occupied.
74
Figure 6.6: Is the size of each rank sufficient?
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
% of Respondents
Too Small
Sufficient
50.0
Too Large
No Answer
40.0
Taken over by private hire
Wrong Place
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
y
ay
n
et
et
et
et
or
ax
io
re
re
re
re
kw
rp
at
al
St
St
St
St
Ai
St
ar
/G
e
rk
on
tP
n
te
et
n
rg
to
Pa
ai
gt
es
re
or
eo
Lu
Tr
lin
St
ch
rp
G
el
n
Ai
an
ge
to
er
W
n
Lu
/M
pp
id
to
Br
et
U
Lu
re
St
n
do
or
G
Rank
6.2.14 The drivers were asked if they thought that the current written test is adequate to ensure
high standards of drivers. 78.4% of drivers said that they thought it was. 5.3% of drivers
didn’t answer and 16.4% of drivers said that they didn’t think it was adequate. 71% of
these thought that the test was too easy or not long enough. One driver responded that
too many drivers could not speak English well enough. Another suggested that the
council should provide up to date information about the location of schools, hospitals,
hotels and other amenities and places of recreation.
6.2.15 The drivers were also asked if they thought that a practical driving test would be useful,
firstly for existing drivers and secondly for new drivers. The chart in figure 6.7 shows
their opinions for existing drivers. 80% believe that it would not be useful, 4% did not
give an answer and 16% said that they thought it would be useful.
6.2.16 The chart in figure 6.8 shows their opinions for new drivers. 50% of respondents thought
that a practical test would be a good idea, 45% said it wouldn’t, 5% gave no answer, and
1 driver said that the UK test was sufficient but those who exchange their foreign
licenses for UK are sometimes not taught to an adequate level.
75
Figure 6.7: Would a practical test be useful for existing drivers?
16%
4%
No
NO ANSWER
Yes
80%
Figure 6.8: Would a practical test be useful for new drivers?
45%
No
50% NO ANSWER
Yes
5%
76
6.2.17 Figure 6.9 details the percentage of respondents who gave figures of what they thought
were suitable prices for a Hackney Vehicle License, a Hackney Driver License, a PHV
Vehicle License and a PHV Driver License. As expected for a question of this nature, the
answers were wide ranging. A third of respondents thought that a good figure for a
Hackney Vehicle license would be £100 to £150, but almost a quarter thought that £150
to £200 would be a suitable figure. Almost 10% said a figure of less than £50 would be
suitable.
6.2.18 For a Hackney Driver license, around two-thirds of respondents said that a figure
between £100 and £200 would be suitable. 4% said that a figure of less than £50 would
be suitable and just over 12% said a figure of over £150 would be suitable.
6.2.19 The PHV license fees questions understandably had fewer responses. For both the
vehicle and driver questions, almost two-thirds did not give an answer. However, most of
the answers received said that between £100 and £200 would be a suitable figure for
either.
Figure 6.9: What is a reasonable figure for the various taxi licenses?
70.0
60.0
50.0
Less than £50

% of respondents
40.0 Between £50 and £100

Between £100 and £150
30.0 Greater than £200
NO ANSWER
20.0
10.0
0.0
Hackney Vehicle License Hackney Driver License PHV Vehicle PHV Driver
Type of License
77
6.2.20 The drivers were asked what the age of their vehicle was. 22% of drivers did not answer
this question. Figure 6.10 shows the percentage of drivers who own a vehicle of certain
ages. The most common age of vehicle is 2 or 3 years old. There are very few vehicles
which are older than 10 years, and very few that are less than a year.
Figure 6.10: Age of vehicle
25.0
20.0
Percentage of Respondents
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
ar
s
s
ER
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
th
th
th
ar
ar
ar
Ye
on
on
on
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
SW
1
m
9
5
10
11
15
AN
1.
2.
9.
5
O
N
Age of Vehicle
6.2.21 Drivers were also asked if they thought that all taxi vehicles should meet a set of
minimum environmental standards. Almost 63% said yes, they should, with a further 1%
adding that yes they should, but the existing MOT is acceptable. 29% said that they
shouldn’t meet a minimum standard. 1 response was that taxis are always built with
safety and the environment taken into consideration.
6.2.22 One of the final questions asked if they thought that the current disciplinary procedures
were fair and appropriate. 55.6% think that they are, 37.4% think that they aren’t and 7%
did not answer. A few of the reasons given as to why it was not fair were to do with the
harshness of the penalty, in lots of opinions, it was felt that it was too harsh. Some
responses were also that there were feelings that they were guilty until proven innocent
or that there was not enough investigation into each incident before a badge has been
taken away.
6.2.23 A key question in the driver questionnaire was how they thought that the council could
improve the conditions for taxi drivers. As with the previous paragraph, the full answers
are shown in the appendix. Some drivers think that the conditions at the moment are fair.
Others think that appearance and politeness to customers is a very important factor and
should be monitored and enforced. Some suggest that a written and spoken English test
would be useful as part of the conditions. Many think that there is not being enough done
to prevent PHVs taking the Hackneys trade. A few suggestions were along the lines that
the council should listen more to the drivers points of view as well as the customers and
also go through more consultation with the drivers on a regular basis, however, some
78
thought that one spokesperson for all of them was needed. One area that was
mentioned several times is the consideration of the driver’s livelihood and taking into
consideration the inflation on a month by month basis.
6.2.24 Some drivers suggested that facilities would be useful near to the rank, either in the form
of public or private toilets or something else. There were several comments that the
council should stop giving out licences as there are too many Hackneys and PHVs at the
moment and it is difficult to get a fare.
6.2.25 Following on in the same line, the drivers were asked to make comments about anything
else. Some key points are easily seen from each of the individual comments. The first is
that more M.O.T. stations are required, and the fees for the M.O.T. should be lowered.
The second is that the council should be fairer when it comes to disciplinary action, and
particularly in getting the driver’s side of the story before the license is taken away. The
third is the need for more enforcement, primarily to prevent the PHV trade operating
illegally (one suggestion was to remove the PHV offices from the town centre), and also
to enforce drivers appearances and behaviour. Bigger taxi ranks are also a suggestion,
mainly because there are too many taxis.
6.2.26 Overall the drivers feel that there are too many taxis in operation in Luton at the moment,
and this is having an effect on their incomes. They feel that most of the ranks are too
small, although some recognise that this is because there are so many taxis. Many have
commented that PHVs are taking their business and not enough is being done to stop
this happening, though some recognise that resources are tight. Over half would like to
see practical driving tests for new drivers and some would like to see the written test
become more challenging. The vast majority see that taxis in general, have to wait for
longer than 20 minutes at most places in Luton to pick up a fare whereas customers
have to wait less than 5 minutes and usually less or no time at all. Some drivers are
happy with the procedures and conditions that the council employ, but some believe that
the council do not listen to drivers enough when complaints are made.
6.3 Stakeholder Consultation

6.3.1 A number of stakeholders were spoken to about the taxi trade. The aim of these
discussions was to allow each of them to share all of their opinions about the trade.
Listed below are the responses.
6.3.2 The Disability and Racial Advisory Forum organisers said that it had come to light that
some taxi drivers were occasionally feeling threatened by customers, and also
occasionally abused. Very limited information is held by the council regarding these
incidents, which is mainly caused by the unwillingness of drivers to report such matters
to the police or licensing authority. There are some proposals to improve these, but as
yet are at an early stage.
6.3.3 The Airport currently has an agreement with the Luton Taxi Association, whereby only
their Hackneys are allowed to use the rank and feeder to pick up passengers. At
present, no others are allowed to use the rank to ply for hire, although they are allowed
to use the normal areas for dropping off. This is sometimes abused by those drivers not
allowed to use the rank, who attempt to ply for hire at the pick up rank. This is also an
issue near to the main terminal where other drivers are often found to be trying to pick up
fares, although this is trying to be stamped out.
6.3.4 Recently the main and feeder areas have been changed around to allow for more free
flowing movement, and the only issues that really come up relate to day to day minor
issues with how the movement works. There is a good working relationship between the
79
Taxi Association and the Airport, and any problems are sorted out very quickly if they
arise.
6.3.5 In terms of the levels of taxis at the ranks, according to the Airport, it sometimes varies
according to the peaks, but usually, there are plenty of taxis waiting. It is also noted that
most of these end up waiting a substantial time for fares.
6.3.6 The disability resource centre were contacted to find out what they advised, whether
there were any issues, and whether the people they support have found taxis in Luton
and their drivers helpful. Below is a quote from the centre.
“With regard to taxi demand we maintain a large database of disability information which
includes contact details of accessible taxis, these we have obtained by recommendation
and research. We do get quite a few enquiries for this as transport is a big issue for
disabled people and for those who cannot use buses, taxis are the next step. There is a
problem though that people on benefits cannot afford them and then will use services
such as Dial a Ride.
“There have been issues with discrimination such as not allowing guide dogs in taxis
and being charged extra for being in a wheelchair. Some drivers are not particularly
helpful and are reluctant to assist people into taxis or take bags and cases.
“The Disability Resource Centre does taxi driver training and hopefully for those who
have had this some of the issues are being addressed. It is often simply a matter of not
understanding problems that people with disabilities encounter.
“We always advise people with disabilities to explain that they have a disability when
they book, it has been known for taxi drivers to go past their client if they see a
wheelchair of guide dog and just leave them there.
“The number of accessible taxis is increasing and many provide a good service but our
reports are that there is still work to do to improve it.”
80
7 Impact of Planned Regeneration Projects
7.1 Overview
7.1.1 This chapter explains the regeneration projects planned for Luton town centre and its
surroundings. Luton is undergoing a radical transformation; this is mainly due to its
proximity to London, affordable residential property, and ease of access to the rest of the
UK and Europe. All these features have served to attract a great deal of public and
private investment, and a corresponding population surge.
7.1.2 In addition, the Luton area is recognised in the East of England Plan as a priority area for
economic regeneration, as a regional interchange centre (EEP, Ch.4, pg.32) and is part
of the larger Milton Keynes and South Midlands growth area.
7.1.3 It has excellent road links being in close proximity to the M1 and M25 motorways and
A1, A5 and A6 road corridors. Due to its excellent transportation links, Luton has
attracted many investments into and around the town centre.
Luton Town Centre – Development Framework (2007)

7.1.4 Luton town centre transformation has been driven by Luton Borough Council’s
determination to reinvent the town centre and attract and guide future development
schemes. The main aim is to create a vibrant and accessible town centre which people
can enjoy and be proud of.
7.1.5 Luton Borough Council has produced a Town Centre Development Framework, finalised
in 2007, which addresses community and stakeholders concerns on growth impact.
(http://www.luton.gov.uk/internet/business/economic_development/sites%20and%20spe
cial%20projects%20policy, accessed 08/10/2008)
7.1.6 In line with Town Centre Development Framework, a £4 billion comprehensive

programme of improvements is in place in the next five years and £20 billion of
investment is forecast until 2030 aiming on changing the town centre.
7.1.7 The enhancement and transformation of Luton is well underway with projects such as
the Butterfield Business Park and Napier Park. These are complemented by other
regeneration projects in the town such as The Luton Gateway, The Mall, Power Court
and St Georges Square. (http://www.thinkluton.co.uk, accessed 08/10/2008).
The Luton Gateway

7.1.8 The Luton Gateway is a primary development focus for Luton Borough Council that will
provide a new bus station and release land to facilitate the delivery of the Luton-
Dunstable Busway interchange and the completion of the town's inner ring road. The
station gateway development is the town’s most important regeneration project,
transforming the existing rail and bus station.
7.1.9 Luton Gateway is intended to provide a high quality arrival point for Luton that sets the
standard for the rest of the town, with modern, safe and easy to use public transport
facilities and enhanced pedestrian links to the rest of the town centre.
81
Figure 7.1: Key Regeneration projects location
Source: http://www.thinkluton.co.uk/think_investment/map.html, accessed 08/10/2008
Butterfield Business Park

"Butterfield will be a major business location that will create a substantial number of jobs
and provide a strong focus for Luton's diversification towards a high-tech, knowledge-
based economy. The EEDA-supported Innovation and Business Base will play an
important role in this step change." David Marlow, EEDA Chief Executive
7.1.10 A high-tech Business Park on the outskirts of Luton incorporating the Innovation Centre
and Business Base. In this location on the outskirts of Luton the 85 acre Butterfield
Business and Technology Park will offer one million square feet of new business space
incorporating buildings for:
corporate headquarters
research and development
manufacturing
technology
82
Figure 7.2: Butterfield Business Park aerial view
Source: http://www.butterfieldluton.co.uk, accessed 08/10/2008
7.1.11 The first phase of The Village is now available for occupation with occupiers including
Royal Bank of Scotland and The University of Bedfordshire. The project completion date
is not known at present. (http://butterfieldluton.com/index.html;
http://www.eastergroup.co.uk/Development.aspx?propID=6514, accessed 08/10/2008).
Napier Park
7.1.12 Napier Park, the £400 million redevelopment of the former Vauxhall car site, is one of the
south east England’s largest urban regeneration projects. Napier Park consists of 55
acres that was the home of the former vehicle production site at Kimpton Road.
83
Figure 7.3: Napier Park redevelopment plans
Source: http://www.napierpark.com, accessed 08/10/2008
7.1.13 The following table shows the comparison of the approved development and the
proposed changes and additions submitted to Luton Council in 2008.
Table 7.1: Napier Park approved and proposed developments
Planning permission Pending revised outline planning application submitted

approved in 2006 in 2008
up to 1400 residential 200 bedroom hotel
up to 1000 residential 65,000m2 office Fitness
4,000m2 office 4,000m2 retail Up to 9,400m2 retail
4,000m2 retail Casino warehouse
Casino Conference centre 8,000m2 light industrial
Conference centre 5,000 car parks
200 bedroom hotel
Fitness and the following additional sites:
Up to 7432m2 retail New 5 Acre Central Park
warehouse Napier Park Stirling’s Place including: 400 residential
Up to 11,950m2 small units, 11,800m2 office, 1,495m2 retail and link to Luton
business Airport with ticketing facilities.
5,000 car parks
7.1.14 The outline planning submission is due to go through public consultation and the
comments received will help shape the final application that is forecast to be submitted in
2008.
(http://www.luton.gov.uk/internet/business/economic_development/vauxhall%20site%20r
edevelopment; http://napierpark.com/, accessed 08/10/2008)
7.1.15 At the time of writing, Napier Park has not begun building yet and the forecast
completion date is uncertain.
84
Arndale Centre – The Mall

7.1.16 The new owners of the Arndale Centre, The Mall Co will be remodelling the shopping
mall frontage during 2008.
7.1.17 The Mall Arndale is one of the areas premier shopping centres in the heart of the town.
The Mall’s vision for the redevelopment of The Mall Arndale is to focus on creating
bigger, more modern shop units to attract prestigious new retailers to the town;
improving the appearance of the centre through high quality architecture and urban
design, and integrating the redevelopment of The Mall Arndale with other key town
centre regeneration initiatives.
7.1.18 The Mall have submitted a planning application to develop the 300,000sq feet multi-
million pound refurbishment of the Northern Gateway. Its £150 million redevelopment
frontage facing the newly developed St George’s Square is due to begin during 2008.
7.1.19 In addition to the retail space, the redevelopment of The Mall will also provide:
1,000 sq m (10,760 sq ft) of office space
124 flats, and modern parking facilities
24-hour access through The Mall to George Street and St George's Square
significant new areas of public realm, including a new public square
(http://www.themall.co.uk/business/pr-12-Dec-2007-2140.aspx, accessed 08/10/2008)
7.1.20 Small extension part (area facing St George Square is planned to be completed by
autumn 2009. Start and completion date for the rest of the development is still uncertain.
Power Court
7.1.21 Ballymore Properties Ltd is looking to regenerate the area next to St Mary’s Church and
bordered by St Mary’s Road and Church Street, into high quality town centre shopping
and leisure facilities, together with new affordable & private homes.
7.1.22 Ballymore are investing £200 million to create 500,000 sq ft high of quality retail and
leisure development including:
200 luxury homes,
a new pedestrianised zone and
an attractive new square.
7.1.23 The retail proposals include additional shopping, restaurants, cafes and parking.
7.1.24 The Power Court development will integrate within the existing town centre, including the
Arndale and provide an impetus for radically improving the town.
(http://stmarysluton.org/page35.html)
7.1.25 The planning application is still being determined by the Council planning department
and there are no indications for the start or completion date.
7.2 Taxi demand impact

7.2.1 The consultant team has produced some estimated figures (see Table 7.3) which assess
the likely impact of the proposed developments on taxi demand.
85
Table 7.2: Estimated taxi demand (summary)
Development Impact on taxi demand

Luton Gateway • Limited impact on taxi demand
• Slight reduction on demand as taxi
Luton Dunstable Bus Way
users switch to Busway.
St George Square • Limited impact on taxi demand
Butterfield • Approx. 60 trips per day
• 45 trips per day (Hotel)
• 5 trips per day (Retail)
• 7 – 9 trips per day (office)
• 15 trips per day (residential units)
Napier Park • Retail warehouse – unlikely to generate
many taxi trips.
• Casino – Unknown. Star City Casino in
Birmingham has at least 50-75 trips per
day.
The Mall • Unknown – Slight Increase
Power Court • Unknown – Slight Increase
7.2.2 However, due to the uncertainty of timescales and current difficulties facing the overall
economy, it is impossible to predict when development will commence, be completed or
which form they will take. Therefore, assessment of impact on taxi demand becomes
very complex.
7.2.3 In addition, the consultant team was faced with difficulties in obtaining benchmark
information on calculating taxi demand impact of large regeneration schemes. The
Transport Assessment reports submitted by developers for proposed large
developments do not assess the impact on taxi demand, although the TA for Power
Court does briefly mention that there could be an opportunity to reinstate the Church
Street rank at the front of the development.
7.2.4 Taxi demand impact has been calculated using TRAVL and TRICS databases and from
the information provided from operators of similar businesses. Thus, the figures in Table
7.3 below are indicative and are subject to a degree of uncertainty. They should be
viewed as a rough estimation only.
7.2.5 It should be noted that the country wide TRICS database does not split the mode of
arrival and departure down as far as taxi data. The TRAVL database is based in London
and often has quite old survey data, but it does have separate modal data for taxis. We
have also taken the percentage of residents who travel to work by car from the 2001
census data (which is around 0.6% in Luton) and used this as a rough guide for the
amount of trips that might be taken to work by using taxis. A combination of these
methods has formed a basis of our estimates, but it is by no means a comprehensive
estimation and by further investigation when the developments are completed, a better
idea of the demand can be assessed properly.
7.3 Conclusion
7.3.1 Luton will continue to grow as a sub-regional shopping destination complemented by
ongoing town centre regeneration. The Development Framework has seen some results
with approved and ongoing plans for the town centre regeneration. Regeneration
projects underway and those planned will most certainly have an impact on the taxi
demand.
86
7.3.2 The consultant team advises the client to monitor closely the progress of the
regeneration projects in the next two to three years in order to avoid any unexpected
increase of demand for taxi trade. This should take the form of an unmet demand study.
87
Table 7.3: Taxi demand forecast
Development Comments Timescale Taxi Demand
£40M upgrade consisting of several projects:

New car park Some of the works have begun, overall • This project is unlikely to have a big impact on the number of taxi trips, it is expected that a
Luton Gateway
New footbridge completion expected in 2013. similar number of taxi trips will be taken from the train station as currently.
Widening of station platforms
Possible demolition and rebuilding of new station
Luton Dunstable • This project is likely to take away some taxi trips between the towns as people seek cheaper
The bus way is planned to link Houghton Regis, Dunstable and Luton Completion expected Autumn 2009
Bus Way methods of travel.
• This redevelopment was completed at the time of the survey, so any changes were captured
St George Square £2.2m Physical upgrade Completed in the survey results.
Total 1million square ft including: • Of the parts of this development that are likely to have an impact on the taxi trade, the hotel
Phase 1 completed, including a hotel and were contacted and has estimated that around 30 to 35 taxi trips are made each day. The
Butterfield Innovation and Business Base Business Village several units already occupied. It is being website for the development indicates that around 10,000 jobs. If we take the 2001 census
Park and Ride Offices built on phase by phase. Completion date is figure of the percentage of people taking a taxi to work (0.6%), we would estimate that around
Hotel Technology presently uncertain. 60 people would take a taxi to work each day.
Corporate Headquarters
Approved development (2006, 22.72ha) • The estimations here are for the approved development, not that which is pending planning
permission. Based on the estimated number of taxi trips to the new Hilton hotel in Butterfield
1000 residential units 7,432m2 retail warehouse Park (155 rooms), we can estimate that for a 200 bedroom hotel, around 45 taxi trips could
4,000m2 office, 11,950m2 small business be made in an average day to the hotel.
casino & conference centre 5,000 car parks
200 bed hotel & fitness 4,000m2 retail • Based on figures obtained from the TRAVL database, 4,000m² of retail may generate around
5 taxi trips per day (this is based on two surveys of retail parks, one in Ilford and one in South
Pending planning application Ruislip).
submitted in 2008
• 4,000m² of office space could generate around 554 people trips per day using estimates
1400 residential units based on the TRICs database. Using the 2001 census figure, we can estimate that around 3
65,000m2 office or 4 of these would take a taxi to and from work. Using the same method of estimation, a
4,000m2 retail business park of around 11,950m² could generate around 747 total arrivals, and assuming all
casino & conference centre these are employees, based on the census data, around 4 or 5 would arrive by taxi. For both
Napier Park 200 bed hotel & fitness Forecast office and hotel completion towards of these of course, additional taxi trips would be generated by visitors to the offices and
9,400m2 retail warehouse the end of 2009. However as the time of businesses.
8,000m2 light industrial writing the building has not started yet.
5,000 car parks Completion date is presently uncertain. • Using the same method, 1000 residential units could generate around 2,466 people
new 5 acre central park departures per day. (Note that this includes residents and visitors arriving and departing)
Using the travel to work figure from the census data, this would equate to around 15 taxi trips.
and new Napier Park Stirling’s Place However, this is only the figure to and from work, and does not include any taxi trips related
to leisure purposes.
400 residential units
11,800m2 office • The vast majority of retail warehouse visitors are generally car drivers or passengers and so
1,495m2 retail this is unlikely to have a large effect on the taxi trade.
link to Luton Airport
new ticketing facilities • The casino is likely to have a big impact on the number of taxis needed to take people to and
from the site. No specific details about the amount of taxis to and from a casino are available
without conducting additional surveys. A survey on the TRAVL database shows that 6% of
users arrived at a Bingo Hall by taxi. The taxi supplier to Star City Casino in Birmingham say
that they make around 50 to 75 trips per day to the casino complex.
88
Approved development (2006, 16,680m2) • The approved development, due for completion in 2009 has 6,822m² of additional retail
space. It is unlikely that a development of this size in the middle of the town centre will have a
retail
large impact on the taxi trade, particularly given the current amount of taxis waiting for fares in
car park
the town centre.
ancillary works
Pending planning application submitted in 2007, 1.2m square feet, • Very limited data is available for taxi trips at the scale of the larger development. It is obvious
The Mall Area facing St George Sq planned to be that 37,000m² would be likely to draw in more crowds, and some of these would be from
£150m investment complete on autumn 2009. Completion date further afield in the catchment, and some would be local. The additional taxi use is hard to
37,000 sq m (400,000 sq ft) of new retail space is presently uncertain. estimate.
1,000 sq m (10,760 sq ft) of office space
24 flats, • 24 flats and 1,000m² would have only limited effect on the taxi trade.
modern parking facilities,
a new public square
Pending planning application submitted in 2006, £200m investment • Information about the number of trips likely to be generated is limited in availability. However,
the planning application was accompanied with a TA which mentioned the possibility of the
A1 and A3 (up to 55,420 square metre) Planning application still pending.
Power Court reinstatement of the Church Street taxi rank.
Residential (up to 213 Units) Completion date is presently uncertain.
Community and Leisure Uses
Car Parking and Associated Highway and Culvert Works
89
8 Conclusions
8.1 Public Opinions

8.1.1 The taxi using public are generally satisfied with the taxi service provided in Luton, with
the majority of users thinking that there are enough taxis. There has been a drop in the
number of people who think that more Hackneys should be available at night time since
the 2006 study.
8.1.2 The average scores for the various factors of service for Hackneys are generally between
6 and 8 out of 10, with some categories showing a slight decrease, for example local
knowledge, and some showing a slight increase, for example the amount of time you wait
for a cab.
8.1.3 Some of the most common observations, that came up in several questions through the
questionnaire was the price of Hackneys over PHVs and the price of taxis generally. Of
those people who don’t use taxis, they would be encouraged by a reduction in price. Of
those who use PHVs, over half chose PHVs over Hackneys due to the fact that they were
cheaper. Over 90% of respondents waited less than 5 minutes for a taxi the last time they
took one, and around 95% think that the wait time is satisfactory. However, in 2008, there
was a 25% increase in the percentage of respondents who felt that their average waits for
Hackneys were 3-5 minutes and a decrease of 20% of those who waited 1-2 minutes
compared to 2006. In addition to this, most users think that the location of the taxi ranks
is convenient although there were some respondents who called for more taxi ranks at
night time.
8.1.4 The vast majority of PHV users were picked up at home after phoning a company. Over
half of PHV users chose PHVs over Hackneys because they are cheaper, over 15% used
them because they knew the company or had a phone number and over 10% said that
they used PHVs because they were more convenient.
8.1.5 Around 64% of those who were picked up after shopping in the town centre caught their
PHV at a rank or by flagging it down in the street whereas 29% booked the taxi over the
phone. Around 17% of people who caught the PHV after a night out either waited at a
rank or hailed it down in the street, but 52% booked it on the phone.
8.1.6 In 2008, the scores out of 10 for the PHV service were generally higher than 2006, and
most average marks out of 10 were around the 8 mark. The one area of low marks was
accessibility, in which the average score out of 10 was just over 5.
8.1.7 Generally, around a third of users say that there are almost enough Hackneys available,
35% never use Hackneys and so have no opinion, and almost 25% say that there are
enough Hackneys but that they are not in the right place at the right time. However, very
few people thought that there was a shortage at night time.
8.1.8 In terms of additional ranks, many people think that the town centre ranks are quite
convenient. However, more people would like to see additional ranks at night time, some
people would like to see more ranks served for 24hrs and some would like to see ranks
near The Mall and even at Luton Football Club.
8.1.9 The public’s opinions on how to improve taxis in Luton were wide ranging, from the
expected “reduce prices” to “more female drivers”. A few respondents wanted customer
service improving from providing more help with buggies and shopping to speaking better
English and being tested for drugs. Despite this, it must be stressed that most people are
satisfied with the taxi service in Luton.
90
8.1.10 Latent demand in Luton is almost all based on economic factors, the major one being a
reduction in the price of taxis, both PHVs and primarily Hackneys, would possibly
encourage more people to use taxis.
8.2 Observations
8.2.1 One of the key observations was that there are many taxis currently serving the ranks of
Luton throughout all time periods. There was very rarely any time where there were
people waiting for a taxi, and for those periods where this did happen, they were waiting
only for a matter of minutes until another taxi or taxis came to clear the queue of
passengers. The make up of the type of taxis seen in the ranks though, is a telling
observation. Over the two days of survey, over half of the taxis observed at ranks in the
town were PHVs. This is shown in figure 8.1. This suggests that there is substantial
amounts of illegal plying for hire by the PHVs.
Figure 8.1: Total Split of Hackneys/PHVs
3104, 47%
Hackneys
PHVs
3528, 53%
8.2.2 The busiest and largest ranks in Luton, at the Airport and on Park Street were both full of
taxis for the majority of the day. There were frequently times when overflow lanes and car
parks had to be used to accommodate all the taxis waiting for fares. This happened not
only at Park Street and the Airport, but also around Upper George Street and Wellington
Street. In the latter two’s case though, this was almost entirely PHVs who were waiting
next to the town centre to pick up passengers.
8.2.3 The Airport was served throughout the day and had many taxis waiting for a lucrative
long distance fare. As a result of this the overflow car park was often used and the dwell
times were almost always much higher than other ranks in Luton. The train station and
Park Street are other ranks which had long dwell times and although the Park Street main
rank had a high turnover and relatively short dwell time for taxis, when combined with the
feeder rank, the dwell time increases significantly and was an average of 11 ½ minutes
91
for Hackneys and 8 minutes for PHVs on Friday and 13 minutes and 3 minutes on
Saturday for Hackneys and PHVs respectively.
8.2.4 The rank located at Luton Airport Parkway station was one of few ranks where any
passengers were seen waiting for a taxi. This very occasionally occurred as trains arrived
and the small size of the rank means that there were sometimes not enough taxis waiting
for all passengers wishing to take a taxi. At all other ranks there was almost always a
large queue of taxis waiting for fares to collect. In most instances, the queue of taxis
rarely dropped to below 2 taxis.
8.2.5 At night time, the Hackney and PHV trades both managed to collect all the late night
revellers waiting to be picked up from the town centre. One of the main, dedicated night
time ranks is that of Manchester Street/Gordon Street. There was almost always a queue
of at least 3 or 4 taxis, and usually more. This is a mixture of PHVs and Hackneys but the
rank was served well and even at the closing time of the clubs, there were sufficient taxis
to collect the fares. Again, this is an area with many more PHVs than Hackneys. As a
means for describing the nature of the observations, if there were no PHVs in operation
at this rank, the Hackneys would have had to make an additional 212 trips to the rank
between 10pm and 4am, which would place a large amount of stress on the Hackney
trade.
8.2.6 Generally at night time the taxis were very busy, with relatively short dwell times
(compared to the rest of the night) until around 12 or 1am, which is when they
experienced a slight lull in the number of passengers needing taxis. A surplus of taxis
built up at this time throughout the town centre, but this was followed by a very busy
period where lots of passengers were picked up for a few hours. The dwell times at Park
Street show a clear increase in the amount of time that taxis wait in the evening and night
time hours, both for PHVs and Hackneys.
8.2.7 From all our observations, we can conclude that passengers were almost always able to
find a taxi when they needed one. The dwell times of both Hackneys and PHVs were
fairly high. This is primarily because there were so many taxis operating in Luton, and is
not helped by the fact that many of the taxis were PHVs that were illegally plying for hire.
If the PHVs did not exist, a great amount of demand would be displaced to the Hackney
trade, which, based on the number of PHVs currently operating, would create a large
amount of unmet demand, particularly at night.
8.2.8 The reality of the matter however, is that the PHV trade will continue to exist, but
preventing them from plying for hire at the ranks would create some unmet demand in
Luton, based on a supply-demand view alone.
92
8.3 Driver Opinions

8.3.1 The drivers who responded brought up several issues with the current situation in Luton.
Two thirds of them thought that there were too many Hackneys in Luton at present, with
almost a further quarter of the opinion that there are enough Hackney licenses. Only 11%
of respondents felt that there was any need for additional licenses, although 8% of those
who responded wanted to see 21 or more licenses.
8.3.2 Around two-thirds of the drivers who responded felt that at the busiest times, passengers
had to wait between 0 and 5 minutes for a taxi. Around 80% felt that on average, at the
quietest times, taxi drivers had to wait for over 20 minutes to collect a fare. It was
highlighted in this question, that at the quietest times, drivers often had to wait
substantially more than just 20 minutes, with answers varying from 30 minutes to 5 hours,
depending on the rank.
8.3.3 Almost two-thirds of drivers say that at the busiest times, there is not a significant problem
of people being able to find a taxi. And a further 12 respondents, said that there was
absolutely no problems with this at all. Very few thought that there was a lack of
willingness to work at night or too many late licensed premises, and a handful said that
the main reasons for not being able to find a taxi was too much traffic.
8.3.4 When it comes to the ranks, on average, the drivers visit Park Street the most times
during the day, with Luton Airport being visited on average around 3 times a day. Most
ranks are viewed as either too small or sufficient. Wellington Street, Upper George Street,
the night time rank at Gordon Street/Manchester Street and Bridge Street/Galaxy ranks
all had over 50% of respondents who thought that they were too small. Almost 60% think
that the train station is sufficient and around 30% think it is too small; around 40% think
that Luton Airport Parkway Station is too small and around 40% think that it is sufficient,
and the Airport rank itself has similar figures. Just over half of the responses said that
Park Street was sufficient in size, but around 40% said it was too small.
8.3.5 The vast majority of drivers think that the current written test ensures high standards of
drivers, although some would like to see it made more difficult, saying that it is too easy.
Likewise, around 80% of drivers do not think that a practical driving test would be a good
idea for existing drivers, but 50% think that it would be a good idea for new drivers.
8.3.6 Most drivers thought that reasonable fees for both Hackney Vehicle and Hackney Driver
Licenses were between £100 and £200. 63% think that taxis should meet a minimum set
of environmental standards and most vehicles are less than 8 years old.
8.3.7 Many of the drivers had comments and observations about the trade and a few of these
were particularly prominent. One was the “battle” currently taking place with the PHV
trade, and most said that there was too much illegal plying for hire by the PHV trade and
not enough enforcement by the council. Another was the way in which the council deal
with complaints from members of the public, saying that drivers were not given sufficient
opportunity to state their point of view. Some felt that various drivers were banned before
the whole picture had been obtained and of particular concern was the loss of income.
However, in relation to this point, over 55% of drivers think that the disciplinary
procedures are fair, and less than 40% think they aren’t. Some drivers felt that all drivers
should be well presented and have good spoken and written English, some suggesting
tests should be done. There were also murmurings about there being too many taxis at
the moment and passengers not being able to afford them in the current economic
climate.
93
8.4 The impact of new development on the trade

8.4.1 Luton is a town that will continue to grow as a sub regional shopping destination and has
some very large developments that are either in planning permission stage or have been
partially completed. Some of these are likely to have little impact on the taxi trade and
others are likely to have a large impact on demand.
8.4.2 Butterfield business park has already been partially finished and a Hilton Hotel is located
there, which attracts around 30 to 35 taxi trips per day. The remaining features of the
business park are unlikely to have a large impact on the taxi trade as, according to the
2001 census, only 0.6% of the population take a taxi to work. Nevertheless, some taxis
will be visiting the park when it is completed, for both employees and visitors.
8.4.3 Luton Gateway and St Georges Square will improve the attraction of the town and
potentially new visitors will be brought into the town. However, because many of these
will arrive by the train station, which is on the doorstep of the town and one of the key
components of the scheme is to improve the link between the train station and the town
centre, it is unlikely that substantial additional demand for taxis will be found at this
location. St Georges Square was completed at the time of the survey and so any impact
this had is covered by the results shown in this report.
8.4.4 The Mall’s two stages of development are likely to attract additional high street names
and subsequently additional shoppers, though most of these will be from further afield
and many will drive themselves. However, it is estimated that there will be additional
nd
demand for taxis simply because the size of the 2 phase of development. It is unknown
what extent this additional demand will be due to limited data being available about
similar sites on the TRICs and TRAVL databases. This is a similar situation with the
Power Court development, although the TA for Power Court does mention that the
development could provide the opportunity for the reinstatement of a rank at Church
Street.
8.4.5 Luton and Dunstable Busway is likely to, according the business case, make some car
users switch to the Busway. It does not mention specific details regarding taxi users
switching, but it is probable that some people who take taxis to work would make the
switch to the bus, as well as leisure users, as people look to save money.
8.4.6 Napier Park is one of the biggest developments in Luton and the associated taxi trips are
likely to increase. The trips associated with the hotel, based on the trips created by the
hotel in Butterfield, are estimated to be around 45 per day, with at least an additional 25
estimated trips per day created by the office space, retail space and residential
developments. Due to the links with Luton Airport Parkway, some of the taxi trips will be
offset by the train link and also by the Busway link. The casino, however, is difficult to
estimate the number of trips for, due to limited information. Research on the TRAVL
website for a bingo hall suggests that 6% of total trips could be made by taxi. However, a
casino has later opening hours and as a result there is likely to be additional demand for
taxis to and from the site, particularly given its location away from the town centre. The
extent of this is difficult to estimate, but, as a means for comparison, the taxi company
who supply Star City Casino in Birmingham say that they complete between 50 and 75
trips per day to and from the casino.
8.4.7 All the estimates are just this, and with such large developments it is difficult to estimate
use in such a specific way when broken down as far as taxis. Most data available on
transport databases does not break the mode of trip to and from sites down into taxis. As
a result of this, and the fact that many of these developments will not be complete for a
number of years, it is recommended that an additional unmet demand study be
94
completed, even if on a small scale to establish the impact of these developments once
they have been completed.
8.4.8 The 2012 Olympics should also be mentioned. Whilst it is too early to say what effect this
event may have on the taxi trade in Luton, it is expected that as a London Airport, the
town will play at least some part as a port of arrival for the games, and taxis can be
expected to play a part in this.
8.5 Overall Conclusions & Recommendations

8.5.1 Our observations showed a significant amount of PHVs operating at and around Luton’s
taxi ranks. This is most prominent around Upper George Street and at the night time
ranks of Gordon Street/Manchester Street and Bridge Street/Galaxy.
8.5.2 A small amount of unmet demand was found at certain periods of the day, most obviously
around 2pm on Friday as well as the early evening periods. This could not be classed as
significant unmet demand as it only occurs in small peaks, but is nevertheless noticeable
even above the masking of the illegal PHV activity.
8.5.3 The ratio of PHVs to Hackneys generally increased as the night wore on, reaching a peak
of almost 95% PHVs on Friday night between 3am and 4am. If even half of these PHVs
were taken off the road, there would be a significant amount of stress placed on the
Hackney trade, and unmet demand would be created.
8.5.4 However, it would not be practical to licence such large numbers of Hackneys to cater for
such a short peak and there are many other factors to consider than simply just the
amount of Hackneys and PHVs, such as the research undertaken with the public showing
that a significant proportion of PHV users used them because they were cheaper (over
half).
8.5.5 The figures of dwell times show that there were many taxis at several ranks for most of
the survey days, particularly the Airport and, to a lesser extent, the stations. However,
when the fact that many of these are PHVs is taken into consideration, it is clear that
there would not be an oversupply of Hackneys, but the amount of taxis would be
bordering on an undersupply, a fact which would worsen as the night time wore on. We
believe that the current level of illegal PHV activity at the ranks cloaks the true level of
demand for Hackneys.
8.5.6 An obvious starting place would be to clear the ranks and reduce the amount of plying for
hire on street by PHVs through increased enforcement, though this is understandably
tough on finite resources. One option would be a reduction in PHV plates and an increase
in Hackney plates, which would help to some extent balance the two markets.
8.5.7 It is important to consider the developments taking place in Luton as well as the current
economic climate. Given careful consideration to these as well as the small amount of
unmet demand at certain periods of time, and the extent of illegal activity of PHVs that is
masking the true level of demand, we suggest the release of approximately 15-20 plates
per year for the next 3 years. After this point, the number of Hackney/PHV licenses
should be investigated in the means of an additional unmet demand study in the following
2-3 years, as in line with the best practice guidelines.
95
Appendix
Public Questionnaire
96
Driver Questionnaire
97

Luton Unmet Taxi Demand - Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Luton Unmet Taxi Demand - Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luton Unmet Taxi Demand - Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luton Borough Council Taxi Study

Unmet Taxi Demand Study

Luton Borough Council

Project No: 147121

Prepared by: Approved by:

Status: Draft Issue no: 1 Date: 17 December 2008

draft report final 121208.doc

Table 3.1: List of Sites 14

Figure 5.26: Hackney/PHV Split at Airport 56

Unmet Demand Study

Hackney Driver Questionnaire

Regeneration & Developments

1.2 Study Aims

1.3 Terms used in this report

1.4 Defining Significant Unmet Demand

1.5 Format of this report

2 Background to Taxis in Luton

2.1 Current Situation and Previous Findings

3.1 Types of survey

3.3 Rank observations

Figure 3.1: Map of Town Centre Sites

Table 3.1: List of Sites

Hours of Observations Hours of Observations

3.3.5 Shown below are pictures of the taxi ranks.

Figure 3.2: Luton Train Station

Figure 3.3: Park Street Feeder

Figure 3.4: Park Street Main Rank

Figure 3.5: Upper George Street

Figure 3.6: Wellington Street

Figure 3.7: Bridge Street/Galaxy

Figure 3.8: Luton Airport

Figure 3.9: Luton Airport Parkway

4.1.3 A copy of the questionnaire is provided in the appendix.

4.3 Non Taxi Users

4.4 Taxi Users

Figure 4.1: Public knowledge of Hackney/PHV Differences.

Figure 4.2: Types of taxis used by interviewees in 2006.

Figure 4.3: Types of taxis used by interviewees in 2008.

4.5 Hackney Users

Figure 4.4: Hackney carriage use

At least once a week

Figure 4.5: Location of pick up of last Hackney trip

Picked up at your home

Picked up after a visit to

Picked up from other premises

Picked up in the town centre

Figure 4.6: Comparison of percentage of location of last pick up.

Table 4.1: Methods of hiring Hackney carriage

Figure 4.7: Method of hiring Hackney Carriage on last trip.

Figure 4.8: Percentage of recent trips made from rank hirings

Figure 4.9: Respondents approximate average wait time for Hackneys.

42% 1-2 Minutes

Figure 4.11: How satisfactory is this wait?

Figure 4.12: How convenient are the locations of taxi ranks?

Figure 4.13: Average scores for various factors.

4.6 PHV Users

Figure 4.14: How many times respondents use PHVs.

Figure 4.15: Where respondents were picked up on their last trip.