|
The latest Buchanan report on the recently published PCO COF report was a breath of fresh air. It put into perspective the bias afforded LTI by both the PCO and TFL. Buchanan blew a great big hole in the PCO assumption that the Turning circle is a feature that should be retained as a condition. The crux of the matter relies on whether or not the Turning circle is a necesity? Buchanan sided with logic and gave valid reasons why it isn't a "necessity". It is easy to understand why Edinburgh took the decision they did when you read the Buchanan report part 2.
I have recently wrote a short piece on that particular report and in keeping with tradition it can be read on TDO first.
Regards
JD
...................................................................................
June 1st 2006 saw Edinburgh city council take a monumental step in modernising the UK Taxi trade. Councillors on a free vote decided to remove the turning circle condition which for decades has been a hindrance to quality vehicle manufacturers supplying vehicles to Taxi drivers in authorities that religiously adhere to the PCO COF.
Before deciding the fate of the Turning Circle, City of Edinburgh council commissioned a report from Colin Buchanan and Partners on the merits of retaining the outdated condition.
"Cllr Anderson, the leader of City of Edinburgh council" said, "it is not part of this Council's responsibilities to preserve a commercial monopoly or to stand in the way of progress. Edinburgh has plenty of historic icons including the old fashioned chamber we are in today but when we see the need for change to make things better we should never shy away from opportunities to modernise. There have been many very difficult decisions to make during my time on the Council but this isn't one of them. The issue here is whether we value whatever emotional attachment we may feel personally towards a vehicle we already know, over the benefits of allowing a free market and a choice of modern alternative vehicles. We heard some very powerful arguments from disability groups, and we shouldn't set their concerns aside by saying our existing vehicles are adequate. This will mean a more comfortable journey for everyone and it gives people more choice. There is always the opportunity to make things better".
London Taxi Drivers Association has long campaigned for the removal of the TCC in order to allow greater vehicle choice. The PCO and Transport for London however are loath to see the shape of the traditional Black cab disappear, they are minded that competition to manufacturer LTI could make that fear a distinct reality. In my opinion this is the primary reason TFL decided to retain the TCC and leads me to believe their decision was based on "tradition, rather than necessity".
In the second of their two reports, Colin Buchanan and Partners were asked to review a report published by the London Public Carriage Office in respect of their own conditions of fitness. “Reconsideration centred on three aspects arising from the 2003 COF review into London taxis”. These three aspects consisted of, 1. Turning Circle Requirement, (TCR), 2. Sliding doors and 3. The issue of visibility, particularly relating to rear windows.
The Buchanan report highlights the fact that the PCO report relies heavily on mitigating the necessity of the Turning circle for the streets of London. In fact Buchanan list all thirteen points on which the PCO base their report and no fewer than ten of these points specifically relate to the TCR. I suggest there are many independent thinkers who may form the opinion that the PCO report is biased in favour of LTI? Compiling a report in order to make a case to exclude 99.9% of modern vehicle manufacturers based on the ability of a vehicle to perform a U-TURN while disregarding other safety features such as ABS and Airbags, in my opinion is questionable?
These are the thirteen points highlighted by Buchanan as listed in their report, followed by comment highlighting the importance the PCO attached to the turning circle and that 80% of the report concentrated solely on the TCR.
The PCO report is based on 13 Terms of Reference (ToRs).
TOR 1. Does the turning circle requirement offer tangible, significant benefits to the travelling public?
TOR 2. The practical significance of the tight turning circle?
TOR 3. Whether London is different from other cities?
TOR 4. Experience in other cities?
TOR 5. Significance of the tight turning circle to the disabled, TOR Advantages of alternative vehicles to the disabled?
TOR 7. Access to taxi ranks?
TOR 8. Traffic congestion, emissions?
TOR 9. Accidents?
TOR 10. Other advantages of alternative vehicles?
TOR 11. Competition?
TOR 12. Sliding doors?
TOR 13. Visibility? [/b]
ToRs 1 - 10 address the TCR and represents over 80% of the PCO report, this reflects the importance of this issue to the PCO? Consequently, the bulk of this report focuses on the Turning Circle Requirement.
In addressing the ToRs the PCO report covers each sequentially, but cross-references the issues in each TOR with the same issues cropping up in many of the other ToRs, which can make the report difficult to follow. For simplicity, although we have considered the same issues as those covered in the ToRs of the PCO report, we have not adopted the TOR approach, preferring to cover the issues on a case by case basis.
It is to their credit that Buchanan impartially dissected the findings of the PCO report and implied that excluding the vast majority of vehicle manufacturers on the basis that they cannot perform a U-TURN within a specified circumference, is not only illogical but probably unlawful?
In their opening response Buchanan highlights the background to the PCO report and makes a point of stating they do not agree with the findings attributed to the Turning Circle. Here is what they say.
The CoF were last revised in 2003. The PCO completed their most recent revision of the CoF in December 2005. The PCO stated that their starting position for this revision was that no condition operating as a barrier to entry (of the taxi trade) should be imposed or retained; unless that condition confers benefits on customers, drivers and/or the general public, and that these outweigh the benefits of competition. They state that this approach is fully consistent with the guidance from the Office of Fair Trading.
The PCO suggest two elements of this review process balance against each other. The first is the benefits conferred by CoF 7 (turning circle requirement), and the second involves an analysis of the benefits, which would be conferred by opening the market to alternative vehicles. The implication given here is that these are mutually exclusive scenarios. "We do not agree that this is the case, the reasons for which are elaborated in this report".
Buchanan went on to highlight the integrity of the data in the report, especially that conducted by Human Engineering in respect of the turning circle. "It should be remembered that the PCO argued the TCR should be retained in the licensing conditions because of its usability and convenience". It could be argued that Drivers alone should decide what is convenient and usable in their own best interest, after all, they are the ones who have to drive these vehicles? Necessity as far as the PCO is concerned was never a consideration and logic dictates that the turning circle is not a necessity, otherwise every country in the world would have a similar condition. It should not be forgotten that there are many Cities in the world with narrower streets than London yet for some reason only London in the shape of the PCO and TFL and a minority of other UK authorities find it necessary to retain such a condition.
The Buchanan report is excellent and goes a long way in exposing the bias of the PCO in favouring one vehicle manufacturer namely LTI over every other vehicle manufacturer excluding of course Metrocab.
Under the Heading "Competition Issues" Buchanan highlights the PCO position in respect of vehicle competition? They state,
The PCO supports the principles of competition, where, other things being equal a market operating under competitive conditions should be assumed to be better than a market dominated by one or two suppliers. However, the PCO also contends that relaxation of the TCR could lead to the loss of vehicle choice for taxi drivers of a vehicle with the TTC If the purpose built taxi was no longer available due to loss of manufacturing production by virtue of a non viable business environment. They contend that drivers would no longer have the choice of purchasing purpose built vehicles. Moreover, the PCO argues that larger vehicle producers, being geared to mass production, would not address the rather small, specialist taxi sector market.
The PCO also suggests that relaxation of the TCR would not be expected to achieve a significant reduction in costs of taxi owners. We find these curious arguments to make in favour of retaining the TCR. At present retention of the TCR offers no, or very limited choice of vehicle type. Relaxation may well lead to loss of availability of a vehicle with the TTC, but only if this feature was not considered sufficiently important by the trade, to halt the purchase of enough vehicles to ensure continued production.
So, in contrast to the PCO, we assert that competition will allow real choice of vehicles, which most meet the needs of taxi drivers and passengers. Currently there is no such choice. The PCO also admits that the taxi market "currently" operates outside a competitive environment and there is no evidence that larger vehicle producers would be unable to meet the requirements of the taxi trade. We would argue that freeing up the market would permit innovation. Furthermore, there is apparent confusion in the PCO report, which admits that mass production of alternative vehicles provides the benefits derived from greater investment and faster product development, the implication being that this scenario is equally applicable to the taxi market.
With respect to the costs of each type of vehicle upon relaxation of the TCR, decisions on vehicle purchase should be made by the taxi driver alone and unfettered by a highly distorted environment. "Taxi licensing conditions should have no bearing on commercial decision making of taxi drivers".
As a regulator, the PCO admits that it is wholly unable to enquire into the rationale behind particular commercial decisions. If the TTC did not confer significant benefits its retention would not be justified.
Nor is the PCO able to take into account the commercial consequences that a supplier may face, therefore, even if removal of the TCR resulted in the withdrawal from the market of the vehicle with this property, this should be of no concern to the regulator.
In Conclusion Buchanan says.
Colin Buchanan were asked to review their recommendations as laid out in their Final Report, “Review of Licensing Conditions for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers” in the light of the recent publication of the Public Carriage Office (PCO) report, “Reconsideration of three aspects arising from the 2003 review of the Conditions of Fitness for London taxis”.
The results from our surveys, our consultation exercise, the details and arguments from the PCO report reviewed above have not persuaded us that the TCR is essential to the taxi trade in terms of providing a safe working environment. Given that its inclusion may be detrimental to the broader interests of the trade, especially in the longer term, we stand by our original recommendation that Condition 181 be removed from Edinburgh Council’s taxi licensing conditions.
We also stand by our original view that we do not consider sliding doors should be subject of a licensing condition. We acknowledge the importance that design factors and driver behaviour may have on reducing the need for power assistance. As a result we therefore withdraw our ancillary recommendation made in our previous report that sliding doors should be powered.
Split rear windows are common in many other vehicles in general use on public roads, which do not face any particular safety issue in this regard. In addition, taxi drivers tend to rely on their wing mirrors when required to undertake manoeuvres that need good rear view visibility. This is because passenger's, themselves often present obstacles to good rear view visibility. These points, together with the fact that none of the nine other local authorities consulted by the PCO had safety concerns over split rear windows means we remain with the view that we do not see any reason for suggesting a licensing condition that prohibits split rear windows.
LTI is about to sustain further bad news in the shape of Leicester city council who are expected to echo the decision of Edinburgh council and remove the TCR from their conditions of fitness. LTI have already tried to restrict driver choice in Leicester by obtaining a court injunction stopping the council from licensing vehicles that do not comply with the 25ft TC. It has been suggested that LTI in their desperation may take legal action to try and overturn the democratic decision in Edinburgh. To compound matters even further it is a common fact that in many local areas LTI are fighting to preserve the monopoly granted them by virtue of a minority of local authorities who still retain the outdated TC condition.
Every Taxi driver who believes in freedom of choice should lobby or write to their local councillor demanding the removal of the turning circle condition from local licensing provisions. Drivers should ask themselves the question "do we want London Taxis International dictating what we drive" and on their terms, or do we want to be masters of our own destiny? "The choice is yours".
On the 20th June 2006 shares in Manganese Bronze were trading at around 2.15, the company has a Market Capitalisation of 40.83 million pounds on a share Issue of 19.04 million. Since November 2005 shares have been subject to a roller coaster ride fluctuating from a low of, 153p on 2nd Nov 2005 to a high of 228p on 12th May 2006. The announcement by Edinburgh council to remove the TCR has had little effect on the share value but this may change when Leicester decides the fate of their TC policy. Unrest in other parts of the UK such as Manchester, Liverpool and Trafford could see the companies share value plummet in the not too distant future? LTI recently released a press statement advising Production of approximately 300 vehicles will take place in Pakistan. Whereas UK market share is looking increasingly vulnerable, opportunities in other parts of the world may cushion the effect of any UK decline?
JD
|
Login
Register
FAQ
