Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
LICENSING

TO:

Standing Committee on Transportation and Traffic

FROM:

Chief License Inspector in consultation with Director of City Plans and the General Manager of Engineering Services

SUBJECT:

Shared-Ride Services

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

The Vehicle for Hire By-law, Number 6066, amended by By-Law 7828, effective January 2, 1998: a By-Law for licensing and regulating the owners and drivers for hire in the City of Vancouver.

The Vehicle for Hire By-law, Number 6066, amended by By-Law 7903, effective June 16, 1998: a By-law identifying shared-ride vans as a new classification of carrier.

The Vancouver Transportation Plan (1997): supports small community buses offering services around neighbourhoods and as a feeder service to the main BC Transit services. The Transportation Plan also identifies the need for a substantial increase in transit services to accommodate the growing demand for trips around the city.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report examines the opportunities and potential problems presented by providing shared-ride van services in the city.

The Draft Technical Report on Shared-Ride Van Services (on file in the City Clerk's Office) examines issues associated with demand and supply, implications for the transit and taxi industries, and operational and licensing issues.

The Technical Report concludes that shared-ride services could provide a valuable additional transportation service within Vancouver. However, there are concerns that a large fleet could impede traffic flows (particularly in the Downtown during rush hour periods), capture ridership from key transit and taxi markets, and neglect areas that are under served by transit.

This report recommends that Council proceed with caution by licensing two service providers, each operating 20 vehicles in a city-wide pilot project. There would be no requirement that vehicles be wheelchair accessible, however the service may take pressure off of HandyDART by serving mobility impaired passengers. The service can be expanded at a later date should it prove to be a valuable and complementary addition to existing transportation services.

BACKGROUND

1. Earlier Reports to City Council

On June 16, 1998 Council amended The Vehicles for Hire By-law, establishing a Shared-Ride Van as a new classification of vehicle. Council also instructed the Chief License Inspector not to process any applications for Shared-Ride Van services until Council could consider new regulations to govern such operations.

On July 7, 1998 Council reviewed a report in which the Chief License Inspector outlined some legal, commercial and transportation issues involved in a request by a company now known as Local Minibus1 (LMB) for up to 200 vehicle for hire licenses to operate a shared-ride service. The Report concluded that a shared-ride service, could provide a valuable additional transportation service within Vancouver. Council directed staff to review with the Motor Carrier Commission (MCC), BC Transit, the taxi industry and other interested associations and groups, the opportunities and potential problems presented by providing shared-ride services in the city and report back on appropriate measures for licensing and operation.

2. Proposals to Operate Shared-Ride Services

The City of Vancouver has received proposals to operate shared-ride services from LMB and Vancouver Share Ride (VSR)2. See Appendix A. City staff recently met with representatives from a third organization and legal representatives from a fourth that are also interested in submitting proposals.

3. The State of Existing Transit and Taxi Services

Transit Services

TransLink services have been expanding in the city, as has peak period ridership, but have been unable to keep up with the expansion of peak demand. TransLink finds it particularly difficult to compete with the car for cross-city trips (ie not to the Downtown), and in some parts of the city that have a lower level of service. Transit services are also less well suited to trips where passengers may have to walk several blocks home in the dark or inclement weather.

TransLink contracts the HandyDART service for people who have limited mobility. This service does not meet demand and is largely restricted to work, school and medically related trips. In order to secure a seat, one must book up to a week in advance. HandyDART is expensive to operate, covering only 7% of its operating costs through fares. TransLink recognizes that there is considerable unmet demand for services that cannot easily be supplied by transit.

Taxi Services

Currently the City licenses 448 taxicabs, of which 30 are dual license/wheelchair accessible cabs. The City estimates that more cabs are needed to meet demand.

Dual license taxicabs serve HandyDART eligible clients. The Taxi Saver Program allows people with disabilities better opportunities for spontaneous travel throughout the Vancouver region. Participating individuals may call a taxi company and book service directly. A book of Taxi Saver coupons with a total face value of $40 cost the HandyPass holder $20.

In the past the City has auctioned taxi licenses to the highest bidder. At present, three out of four companies retain the licenses in the company name, with individual shareholders for each vehicle. Individuals may purchase an existing taxi license or ½ share of a license through private sale. Prices vary from a low of $100,000 to a high of over $200,000 for a full license. The market value is determined by potential future revenues from the operation of the vehicle. Any additional licenses that may be issued could have a negative impact on the current or future value of the existing taxicab licenses.

4. Jurisdiction over Shared-Ride Services

The City's Vehicle for Hire By-law stipulates the conditions under which vehicles for hire may be licensed, and includes the regulations under which vehicles must operate. Jurisdiction over vehicles for hire and transit services that operate in Vancouver is shared between the MCC, the City of Vancouver and the GVTA. Jurisdiction over shared-ride vehicles depends on whether the service is defined as a vehicle for hire or independent transit service.

Under terms of the Motor Carrier Act, the MCC has jurisdiction over all taxis that operate across municipal boundaries. However, the Act gives jurisdiction over licensing taxis to the City, as long as their operations are confined within city boundaries.

The legislation creating the GVTA provides it with regulatory power over the creation of independent transit services in the transit service region. However, it has not been determined how services will be judged or evaluated or even what would constitute an independent transit service.

DISCUSSION

1. Shared-ride Services Operating Elsewhere

Paratransit is the general name for a class of transportation service offering more flexible and personalised service than the conventional fixed route systems and includes, dial-a-ride, shared-ride minibus and subscription bus services. It offers a level of service between conventional transit and taxis but is not restricted to persons with disabilities. Shared-ride van service can be defined as a form of paratransit service.

Over 20 separate paratransit operations throughout North America were examined as part of the technical study. See Appendix B for details regarding paratransit operations run by TransLink and BC Transit and for a list of nine paratransit services for which extensive ridership, cost and revenue data was available. Results of the research suggest that shared-ride services have only been profitable for a prolonged period where taxi rates are based on a zone rate structure3 or in situations where there is no transit service available.

Recently LMB has established small, fledgling shared-ride services on the North Shore and in Surrey. LMB is operating 3 vehicles on the North Shore and 7 in Surrey. The service on the North Shore has been operating for about a year and the Surrey service for considerably less.

2. Demand for Shared-ride Services

At public meetings for preparation of the City’s transportation plan, residents expressed interest in smaller community buses or van pools to provide short, frequent circuits in and around the neighbourhood and to connect with major bus routes (Transportation Plan: Part Two: 29). The intent of such services is to augment and complement transit services, providing neighbourhood based, low cost transit to those who do not have convenient access to such services.

The shared-ride applications received by the City are more focussed to providing a service that would target commuter trips to downtown, and trips to sporting and entertainment events. They have also identified other markets such as for the mobility challenged, as a substitute for cycling, walking and driving, and for school children.

The City’s assessment of demand (described in Appendix C) suggests the service would target a number of important transit and taxi markets.

3. Potential Impacts of Shared-ride on Transit and Taxi Services

Because there are few examples of independent, licensed shared-ride services operating in areas where taxi and transit services are also operating, there is little quantifiable evidence available to understand the potential effects on transit and taxi services.

Transit

TransLink is concerned about the potential impacts that a shared-ride service might have on the operation of transit vehicles as well as the revenue implications. If shared-ride vans impede transit vehicles by standing at bus stops or soliciting business at TransLink stops, then shared-ride services could become a major concern.

The degree to which shared-ride services divert ridership from buses and SkyTrain services, could influence the frequency of service that TransLink is willing and able to provide. TransLink suggests that the City may need to ensure that there are sufficient controls on shared-ride operators to ensure that the service focuses on markets that are separate from the demand served by transit. Of the markets identified, the TransLink representatives suggested commuter travel, particularly to the Downtown, and event related trips are important markets for transit.

On the other hand, if shared-ride services could respond to the unmet demand for HandyDART, provide safe and dependable travel to and from schools, or supplement services that are currently available for tourists, then the service would be welcomed. Given the above concerns, this report recommends treating the service as a pilot program during the initial 5 years in order to determine the impact on transit services.

Taxis

The City’s Vehicle for Hire By-law contains a formula for calculating the appropriate number of taxi licenses. According to this formula there should be no more than 1.2 taxicabs for every 1,000 residents. Additional licenses are to be issued at a rate not to exceed ten per year. There are 448 taxi licenses issued, a shortfall of 168 taxis.

The City has made representations to the MCC for an increase in taxi licenses, but no new licences have been added in recent years. Anecdotal evidence suggests there are times when customers experience delays, including peak hour travel and weekend evenings. Customers can also experience delays during the height of tourist season, at Christmas and around welfare Wednesdays. There thus appears to be room for an increased number of taxis, especially during hours and periods of peak travel. The MCC has recently undertaken an inquiry into the supply of taxis in the Greater Vancouver region, and may authorize additional licenses within the next several months.

See Appendix D for a more detailed assessment of the potential impact of shared-ride services on the taxi industry and Appendix E for a response from the taxi industry to the Draft Technical Report.

4. Boarding

One potential source of conflict between shared-ride, taxi and transit industries involves the issue of boarding. In particular there is a concern that shared-ride vehicles will make use of taxi and transit stops, particularly during peak periods in the Downtown when curb side space is at a premium.

The conflict can be resolved by establishing designated boarding points within the Downtown. Vans would be required to pick-up passengers only at these locations during the p.m. peak periods on weekdays. For passenger drop-off, and at other times during the day, vans could operate as any other commercial vehicle.

Boarding points would provide other benefits. For example, passengers could gather at designated spots rather than having vans circulate within the downtown to pick-up passengers. Boarding points would also make it easier for prospective passengers to board without having to pre-book a ride.

Engineering has identified 12 locations that would be suitable for shared-ride stops within the downtown. See Appendix F. Details regarding compensation for the loss of parking revenues and signage would be resolved during discussions regarding licensing and operational issues.

5. Booking and Hailing

Shared-ride services proposed thus far would rely upon only pre-booked trips. This requirement may result in frustration for potential riders. When a potential rider sees a van stop to pick-up passengers, they may wish to take advantage of the service. If pre-booking is required, the operator would be required to refuse the trip.

Under certain circumstances, non-booked trips may offer an important service to the community and allow operators to increase their ridership.

Another means of increasing ridership and convenience would be to allow passengers to hail moving vehicles. Hailing of shared-ride vehicles would be impractical since the destination of a passenger and van may be incompatible, thus leading to delays for the driver and passengers and frustration for potential riders. It would also place shared-ride vehicles in direct competition with taxi services. Hailing does not appear to be a practical option at this time.

6. Does the City have Sole Jurisdiction to License Shared-ride Services?

If shared-ride van services are defined as a taxi service and they operate solely within Vancouver, they would fall under the jurisdiction of the City. If, however, the service is defined as an independent transit service, it would fall within the jurisdiction of the GVTA and Vancouver would have to seek approval from the GVTA before licensing the service.

GVTA staff have suggested that shared-ride services would not likely be considered an independent form of transit if the Motor Carrier Act were revised to permit taxi companies and others to provide shared-ride services.

On June 15, 1999 Stan Lanyon, Chair of the Provincial Taxi Study Panel submitted a report to the Honourable Harry Lali entitled “A Study of the Taxi Industry in British Columbia.” This report recognized that services to the public must be expanded to include shared-ride services such as shuttles, mini-vans and mini-buses, and taxi pools. While the MCC has not officially endorsed a shared-ride service, they are considering amending the Motor Carrier Act to permit shared-ride services.

Lanyon also recommends that licensing through the MCC be required for all taxis operating in British Columbia. Vancouver would retain the right to license taxis that operate solely within its municipal boundary but would require approval from the MCC.

Changes to the Motor Carrier Act that require municipally licensed taxis to be licensed through the MCC and to allow taxis to provide shared-ride service would require a legislative amendment. While the Ministry is currently examining the possibility of proceeding with such amendments, no legislative changes could be effected prior to the House sitting in the spring of 2000. See Appendix G, a response from MCC Staff to the Draft Technical Report.

Companies that are licensed to offer shared-ride services in Vancouver before such legislative changes are enacted would thus need to seek and receive MCC approval in order to carry on the activity after such a legislative change. Any company interested in offering the service should be aware of this fact, however the MCC’s requirement should not delay the City if Council chooses to license a shared-ride service.

7. Factors that Affect the Supply of Services

The scope of the service, the viability and the ability of the service to serve identified markets are related to key factors including, the dispatch system, service costs and load factors and fleet size. See Appendix H for a detailed review of these issues. Conclusions are listed below:

(A) Service Costs and Load Factors

(B) Dispatch Systems

(C) Fleet size

8. Description and Assessment of Options

There are a number of considerations that bound the scope of options. The cost analysis suggests that shared-ride services are likely to be marginal and do not offer significant economies of scale. Moreover fully-automated dispatch systems are in the development stage and yet are likely necessary in order to achieve a viable city-wide service. In addition, the taxi and transit industries are concerned about the impact that a shared-ride system might have upon their industries, yet there is little evidence with which to accurately assess the potential impact. These concerns suggest that there is a need for the City to proceed with caution in licensing the service.

While recognizing the constraints, there is a need to establish a service that will meet the demand for an inexpensive, demand responsive, door-to-door service. The service options chosen recognize the tension between the need for caution and the opportunity to provide a needed service. The following table describes the proposed shared-ride service options.

Table A: Shared-ride service options

Service Option

Service Area

Fleet Size

Operational Structure

Dispatch System

(1) Downtown Based Service

Limited to trips to, from and within the downtown

10

One operator

Semi-automated

(2) Small, City-wide Service

City-wide

20

One operator

Fully-automated

(3) A Zone Based City-wide Service

Two zones: the Downtown and the rest of Vancouver

10 and 20

Two operators, one serving trips to, from and within downtown and one serving the rest of Vancouver

A semi-automated system and a fully-automated system

(4) A Competitive City-wide Service

City-wide

20
and
20

Separate operators working independently or using the same dispatch

Fully-automated

9. Assessment and Recommendation

Option 1: Downtown Based Service

Strengths
· Trips tend to be short and demand high, thus has the best chance of achieving ridership targets without the need for a fully-automated, GPS based dispatch.
· Allows the City to examine issues associated with booking and boarding in congested areas.
· Allows the taxi and transit industries to explore potential impacts and conflicts associated with the new service before any major expansion begins.

Weaknesses
· Provides limited experience on which to judge the ability of the service to meet demand and to become viable on a city-wide basis.
· One operator provides none of the benefits of a competitive market, such as the potential for competitive pricing, efforts to differentiate services and consumer choice.

Option 2: Small, City-wide Service

Strengths
· Because the number of vehicles is limited and spread over a large service area, the impact on taxi and transit ridership and flows would be minimized.
· Would likely be offered by one provider thus maximizing productivity.

Weaknesses
· Would offer none of the benefits associated with a competitive market.
· If the provider failed for reasons unrelated to market demand and general operational feasibility the entire service would be threatened.

Option 3: Zone Based City-wide Service

Strengths
· Will serve City-wide demand and yet offer companies the chance to develop markets without the threat of competition within their service area.
· Reduces the threat of separate operators focussing their service within the Downtown where demand is likely to be high.
· The service would not be threatened entirely should one provider fail.

Weaknesses
· Riders would not realize some of the benefits of a competitive market.
· Duplication of fixed costs would make each company less efficient and a limited market would be spread over two operators.

Option 4: A Competitive City-wide Service

Strengths
· Would most closely resemble the typical operational structure that one might expect to develop should the City decide to allow the continuation and expansion of the service.
· Offers benefits associated with a competitive market.
· The entire service would not be threatened should one operator fail.
· The City would have more leverage to demand compliance with regulations.

Weaknesses
· The productivity of each fleet will be reduced since two operators will be covering the same territory.
· Has the strongest possibility of impacting taxi and transit flows and ridership.

Staff recommend Option 4 with two fleets of 20 vehicles be licensed to provide city-wide service for a period of five years. During that time staff will report back on the success of the service. If successful Council would have the option to:

(A) Expand the size of the two existing fleets;
(B) Consider other applicants; or
(C) Both (A) and (B).

At the end of 5 years the licenses would expire and would return to the City. Licenses would be re-issued at the discretion of the City. See Appendix I for a review of the proposals received, in light of the above recommendations.

10. Operational and Licensing Arrangements

The Draft Technical Report examines licensing and operational issues and necessary changes to the Vehicles for Hire By-law. The regulations are designed to alleviate any potential conflicts between shared-ride services and taxi and transit providers and other road users. By-law changes and other operational and licensing details have not been finalized because they are dependent, to some extent upon the service option chosen by Council. Key operational and licensing issues are discussed below:

Disabled Access
· A requirement to carry wheelchair passengers could threaten the viability of the service since there would be a loss of seating capacity and time in loading and unloading wheelchair users and the cost per vehicle to provide wheelchair access is estimated at between $10,000 and $20,000 per vehicle.

· Shared-ride vehicles would not be required to carry wheelchair users. This position is supported by representatives from the Committee to Promote Accessible Transit.

· Shared-ride vehicles would provide service for mobility impaired, leaving HandyDART to focus on serving wheelchair users.

License Terms
· There is a risk that shared-ride licenses will be perceived as a quasi-taxi license and gain an inflated value on the open market. This would be problematic as it could put pressure on vehicle operators to increase fares or to focus on high traffic markets.

· The value of individual licenses can be reduced by making the licenses non-transferable and by placing an expiry date on licenses, after which time an operator must reapply for the right to provide the service.

· Shared-ride drivers should be employees, rather than owner operators, in order to minimize the risk that drivers are profit rather than service focussed.

All operational and licensing details covered in the Draft Technical Report have been reviewed by City staff as well as by outside organizations such as MCC, GVTA, the taxi industry and proponents. The process of finalizing operational and licensing arrangements should thus be relatively short.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Small, community buses are proposed in the Transportation Plan to provide services within neighbourhoods. A shared-ride van service could provide some benefits of community buses.

(2) The City presently has sole jurisdiction to license shared-ride vans, as long as the service operates entirely within the City of Vancouver.

(3) If proposed amendments to the Motor Carrier Act are passed, the MCC would have jurisdiction over all shared-ride and taxi services. Shared-ride operators licensed to operate in Vancouver before such amendment are passed would need to seek and receive MCC approval in order to continue to operate. Any company interested in offering the service should be aware of this fact. However, the MCC’s requirement need not delay the City, if Council chooses to license a shared-ride service.

(4) Proposed changes to the Vehicles for Hire By-law and licensing and operational arrangements are detailed in the Draft Technical Report on Shared-ride Services. Staff will need to finalize these provisions in consultation with the MCC, TransLink, industry representatives and other interested associations and report back to Council with final arrangements and regulations for granting licenses and operation of shared-ride van services.

(5) Shared-ride services could serve a recognized demand for door to door transportation services, however shared-ride vehicles may impede traffic flows and target key taxi and transit markets. Shared-ride services are also unproven and rely upon technology that is in the development stage.

(6) It is recommended that 2 fleets of 20 vehicles be licensed to operate for a period of 5 years. If the pilot proves successful, Council would have the option of expanding the existing fleets and/or considering other applicants.

* * * * *

tt991019.htm

Appendix A: Descriptions Of Proposals Submitted By VSR And LMB

The City has received two proposals to offer shared-ride services in within Vancouver.

LMB
The first came from LMB. Originally LMB requested that they be given a monopoly to operate up to 200 vehicles. LMB has since requested that any company that meets basic fitness and safety requirements be given the right to license as many vehicles as they deem fit.

The proposed service involves a pre-booked, fixed fare service that would take multiple hires. Vehicles would not run on set routes. A typical trip would not be direct, instead diverting to pick-up and drop off passengers as needed. LMB requests that any organization that meets basic safety and fitness requirements, be given the option to license as many shared-ride vehicles as they deem fit. The fare would be fixed at proposed rate of $3.50 outside the Downtown peninsula and $2.50 inside5. Prospective passengers would book by phone or internet for a specific destination, and would be picked up at a designated spot (such as home). The route to the destination would vary according to the mix of destinations of passengers carried.

VSR
More recently, Black Top Cabs, McClure’s Cabs, Vancouver Taxis and Yellow Cab Company have submitted a proposal for a shared-ride service under the name of Vancouver Share Ride (VSR). VSR proposes to operate 20 vehicles with a possibility of increasing to 36 vehicles within four years. Zone fares would be used and average rates would vary from about $3.50 to $5.05 with passengers again paying individually to go to separate destinations from separate origins. VSR is concerned that the market for shared-ride would be fragmented if divided between separate operators. VSR would thus prefer to operate within separate zones or as a monopoly.

At this stage neither LMB nor VSR is seeking a license from the MCC and so trips would have to be confined within Vancouver.

Appendix B: Paratransit Operations In BC And Elsewhere In North America

TransLink and BC Transit run a range of different services throughout the Province that can be considered as paratransit. Some are mainly for disabled people but will take other passengers as well (Quesnel). Some do regular trips to other communities on a fixed schedule but a flexible route (Princeton), or run different types of services at different times of the day, such as a Commuter Club (Revelstoke). The services typically operate where regular transit is impractical, rather than as complementary to regular transit. HandyDART in Vancouver is a good example of how a paratransit service can complement the regular transit.

Service Characteristics

Location

Service Area Characteristics

Efficiency of Service

Costs of Service

 

Pop. Served

Area (Sq.km)

Density (Pop/Sq.km)

Daily Ridership

Km/Day/Veh.

Ave. Occ.

Pass./
Veh-Hr.

Cost/
Pass.

Rev/
Pass.

Fare System

Cost/Re v Ratio

North Battleford, Sask.

14000

n.a.

n.a.

180

n.a.

1.8

n.a.

$1.21

$0.75

Flat rate

1.6

El Cajon, Calif.

60500

19.36

3125

600

184

2

4.9

1.28

0.38

Flat rate

3.4

Peterborough, Ont.

3400

7.36

462

200

298

2.1

0.7

0.90

0.29

Flat rate

3.1

Hicksville, N.Y.

48100

10.88

4421

900

245

n.a

3

1.23

1.79

Flat + cost/mile

0.7

Davenport, Iowa

98500

31.52

3125

1430

312

n.a.

4.5

0.99

1.03

Flat + cost/zone

1

Little Rock, Ark.

315400

240.48

4064

3200

240

2.2

2.7

1.35

n.a.

Flat + cost/zone

n.a.

Madison, Wis.

200000

77.6

2577

2500

307

n.a.

4.3

1.35

n.a.

Flat + cost/zone

n.a.

Benecia, Calif.

8800

14.4

611

80

n.a.

n.a.

2.9

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Santa Clara, Calif

2 million

608

3289

2200

n.a.

1.95

2.79

19

2.25-12

Flat rate

n.a.

*By comparison the City of Vancouver’s population is approximately 515,000, the area is 113 square kilometres and the density is 4,562 people per square kilometre.

tt991019.htm

Appendix C: The City’s Assessment Of Demand For Shared-Ride Services

In order to assess demand for shared-ride services, City staff contacted 22 representatives from a range of groups including hospital and handicapped associations, tourism related service providers and associations, commuter associations and businesses, seniors and community groups, school representatives and event related contacts. Many of those contacted had written letters in support of the shared-ride concept.

The results of the assessment suggest that there is demand for a service that would be more responsive than transit and yet less costly than taxi service. The service would be particularly popular for long-distance taxi trips and for transit trips that require numerous transfers. A shared-ride service might also be popular for short distance journeys that taxis are generally less willing to serve.

Event and commute trips will likely be important markets for shared-ride services, yet they provide an important source of revenue for TransLink. In serving tourists shared-ride services will compete more directly with taxi services.

Appendix D: A More Detailed Assessment Of The Potential Impact Of Shared-ride Services On The Taxi Industry

Information on other shared-ride services and from jurisdictions where the taxi industry has been deregulated suggest that as taxi markets are opened the overall market tends to expand with more people riding more frequently.

The impact upon the taxi industry would depend upon the number of vehicles that are licensed as well as the number of former taxi users that the shared-ride service can attract. Results of a break-even analysis for the service suggest that each shared-ride vehicle would need to carry between 6 and 8 passengers per hour in order to be viable. A 10 vehicle fleet could thus be expected to carry less than five percent of the total number currently carried by the taxi industry6. A 60 vehicle fleet could be expected to carry about 20 percent while a 200 vehicle fleet would carry about 67 percent. A 200 vehicle fleet thus has the potential to capture a significant portion of the taxi market. A 60 vehicle fleet might also be seen as a threat, particularly if that number is licensed in the first year without allowing adequate time for the market to expand.

Appendix E: A Response From The Taxi Industry To The Draft Technical Report

Appendix F: List Of Boarding Points In The Downtown

Location

Meter
Information

Infrastructure
Changes Needed

Comments

East side 800 Beatty

no metres

no new posts

Revise 1 hour 9-6 signs

East side 500 Hamilton

no metres OR 2
metres @ $1.50

no new posts or
1 post

Proposed zone in close
proximity to bus stop.
Recommend metered
location

West side 500 Seymour

2 metres @ $2

no new posts

  

East side 300 Seymour

no metres OR 2
metres @ $3

no new posts or
1 post

  

North side 900 Hastings

no metres OR 2
metres @ $3

no new posts or
1 post

Passenger zone in close proximity to taxi zone. Recommend metered
location

South side 1000 Dunsmuir

2 metres @ $3

1 post

  

North side 1000 Georgia

no metres OR 2
metres @ $3

no new posts or
1 post

  

North side 1100 Alberni

2 metres @ $1

1 post

  

North side 1000 Haro

2 metres @ $2

1 post

  

West side 800 Hornby

2 metres @ $3

1 post

  

South side 500 Robson

2 metres @ $1.5

1 post

  

East side 1200 Granville

2 metres @ $1

1 post

  

Appendix G: Response From The MCC To The Draft Technical Report

October 14, 1999

Gavin Davidson
City of Vancouver

Dear Gavin Davidson:

Re: Report on Shared-Ride Van Services

Thank you for the draft report on shared-ride van services in Vancouver and the opportunity for the Motor Carrier Commission to provide comment. I have spoken to the Chair of the Commission and the Chair of the Reconsideration Panel who have requested that I provide comment for the Commission. The comments are meant to be general in nature and not to be construed as supporting a specific application which the City may be considering.

1. As you know, the Report on the Taxi Industry in British Columbia by Stan Lanyon was published on June 15, 1999. In that report, Lanyon recommends that there be a single provincial licencing body for taxis in British Columbia and that the exemption from Motor Carrier Act regulation for municipally licenced taxis be removed. Such a change would require a legislative amendment. While the Ministry is currently examining the possibility of proceeding with such an amendment, no legislative changes could be effected prior to the House sitting in the spring of 2000.

Subsequent to publication of the Lanyon Report, the Minister for Transportation and Highways, the Honourable Harry Lali, wrote to municipalities advising them that there was a possibility that, while the ‘grandparenting’ of existing municipal licences was a possibiity in light of this recommendation, it was unlikely that such ‘grandparenting’ would apply to taxi companies which were municipally licenced after June 14, 1999.

I raise this point to advise you that a potential service provider may be reluctant to bid on your proposal if they will need to seek and receive Motor Carrier Commission approval in order to carry on the activity after such a legislative change. The City of Vancouver may also have some concerns about initiating such a service if they cannot be assured that such authority will be guaranteed once (and if) such a legislated change is effected.

2. The Commission supports the development of new passenger transportation services which will meet public need and permit the healthy development of the transportation industry. The Commission would be interested in being advised of the progress of any shared-ride pilot projects which the city undertook.

3. The Commission would support a project requirement that the provincial minimum wage and other employment standards as prescribed by the Employment Standards Act (ESA) could be guaranteed to the drivers and other operations staff. While the ESA places a statutory requirment on employers, it is our understanding that there is a great deal of non-compliance with ESA standards. One measure that may promote compliance would be a fare structure sufficient to meet these requirements. A bid which provides for a more attractive (lower) fare for consumers may be insufficient to meet the full costs of the operation. In the Commission's experience, driver remuneration is a frequent victim of insufficient revenue.

4. In the interest of public safety, the Commission would support the requirement for National Safety Code approval for any new passenger transportation venture and inclusion in ICBC’s Commercial Vehicle Inspection Program. As for item 3 noted above, revenue from the project would need to be sufficient to cover costs associated with such public safety measures, otherwise they would be in danger of being neglected.

5. On page 22 of the Draft you indicate that the City has made representations to the Commission to increase the number of taxi licences. It was disappointing to the Commission that we received no input from the City regarding the supply of taxis in the Greater Vancouver Regional District at the public hearing on Taxi Supply on September 9, 1999, nor have we received any written or informal oral submissions. The Commission is deliberating now on the future of the moratorium imposed on the issuance of new taxi licences and the future of regulating supply in the GVRD. I have enclosed a copy of the notice for the public hearing for your reference to the questions the Commission was seeking input on. The Commission expects to make a decision in the next several weeks. I would be available to receive any submissions from the City up to October 14.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours truly,

Jan Rossley
Director

(attachment)

Appendix H: A Review Of Critical Operational Issues

(1) Service Costs and Load Factors

The annualized cost of running shared-ride services is estimated to be approximately $150,000 per vehicle, assuming 16 hours of operation a day and seven days a week. As most costs of the service are in the marginal cost of labour, fuel and vehicle maintenance, there are expected to be relatively few cost savings from running a larger fleet. Operators will however be able to achieve savings by reducing the number of vehicles operating during off peak hours. This suggests a need for employee rather than owner operated vehicles.

The break-even analysis indicates that at an average fare of between $3.50 and $4 per trip, the hourly ridership would need to be approximately 6 to 7 passengers per hour. By comparison HandyDART carries an average of 2.3 passengers per hour while taxis tend to carry an average of approximately 3 passengers per hour.

(2) Dispatch Systems

The dispatch system is a crucial part of a demand responsive shared-ride system. Shared-ride vehicles must be able to pick-up passengers shortly after they have requested a ride and must be able to select an efficient route to multiple destinations. In order to complete this task and achieve the requisite level of ridership, fleet operators serving the entire City would need to use a fully-automated dispatch that incorporates global positioning system (GPS) technology. GPS systems allow dispatchers to quickly identify the nearest available vehicle while fully-automated systems use computer technology to identify and coordinate routing and modem technology to pass information between drivers, dispatchers and passengers.

Fully-automated dispatch systems that employ GPS are being used on a trial basis to serve smaller, defined markets, such as for handicapped customers. Yet, there is no jurisdiction identified that has managed to operate a profitable, demand driven shared-ride services such as the one described within this report. This fact suggests the need to proceed cautiously until fully-automated GPS based dispatch can be proven effective and efficient.

(3) Fleet size

Licensing a number of operators will help to discourage unfair business practices with a minimum of government regulation and interference and would encourage operators to provide fast, quality service in order to win customers. In such a scenario the service would not be jeopardized should a company fail for reasons unrelated to market demand and general operational feasibility.

However, as the number of operators increases, the market for shared-ride services will be diluted and productivity may decrease with drivers travelling further and working longer per passenger carried. This structure may jeopardize the service during the initial start-up phase.

Appendix I: Review Of The Proposals In Light Of The Recommendations

The following section reviews the proposals from LMB and VSR, in light of the above recommendation. The objective of this review is not to assess the qualifications of the proponents, but to identify how the proposed services compare with the service options.

(1) The LMB proposal

There several significant characteristics of the LMB proposal that differ from the service options. LMB proposes that the City should not place controls on the service area boundaries, on fleet size or on the number of competitors that choose to enter the market.

(A) Service Area Boundaries

(B) Fleet Size

(C) Number of Competitors

(2) The VSR Proposal

The VSR business plan proposes that the shared-ride service provider operate between 20 and 36 vehicles throughout the City. The VSR proposal suggests that only one operator be licensed to provide shared-ride service during the initial stages until the market demand and operational feasibility have been confirmed. If two operators are licensed VSR request that they operate in separate service areas.

While an unlimited number of operators would be difficult to regulate, a monopoly structure is also seen as problematic as there would be less incentive to achieve the lowest possible pricing, high quality service standards and to differentiate services to appeal to various market segments.

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver

1 The company originally issued the proposal under the name of Super Shuttle Ltd.

2 VSR is made up of the various taxi companies operating in Vancouver.

3 Taxi rates in the Lower Mainland are based on a drop flag rate as well as distance and time travelled.

4 For example, semi-automated dispatch might require the dispatcher to identify and coordinate routing.

5 This rate was proposed in 1998 and may need to be adjusted upwards.

6 These figures assume taxis carry approximately 30,000 trips per day in Vancouver, shared-ride vehicles operate 16 hours a day and that 10% of the fleet is not operating in any given period.