Licence Application Decision

Transcription

1 Licence Application Decision Taxi Additional Vehicles Application # AV Applicant Abbotsford Taxi Ltd. Principals Address Applicant s Representative Current Licence Application Summary Date Published in Weekly Bulletin Submitters (and representatives) Board Decision BRAR, Barjinder DHALIWAL, Manjinder GILL, Lachman S. KALER, Palwinder MANGAT, Sukhwinder SAHOTA, Shivraj SHARMA, Gagandeep THANDI, Gurpal DHALIWAL, Jugraj GILL, Jagdev S. GREWAL, Jaspreet Singh LIDHRAN, Sarbjit MANN, Kulwant SANDHU, Ramandeep SIDHU, Piara Wheel Avenue, Abbotsford BC V2T 6G7 William McLachlan, McLachlan, Brown Anderson (counsel) (copy attached) Additional Vehicles - Taxi Add 4 vehicles (2 conventional and 2 accessible). This will increase the maximum fleet size to 23 vehicles (19 conventional and 4 accessible). May 27, 2015 None Decision Date June 30, 2015 Panel Chair No additional vehicles are approved. William Bell I. Introduction This is an application from Abbotsford Taxi Ltd. (ATL), which holds Passenger Transportation (PT) licence #70617, with a Special Authorization (SA). ATL is an established provider of taxi service located in Abbotsford, B.C. ATL currently operates a fleet of 19 taxis, of which 17 may be conventional. All other vehicles are accessible taxis. ATL s current conventional fleet consists of Toyota Corolla or Toyota Prius models. Its current accessible fleet consists of 2 Toyota Sienna wheelchair accessible vans. ATL is applying for an addition of 2 larger conventional taxis such as a 6 passenger Honda Page 1 Passenger Transportation Board Decision

2 Odyssey or Toyota Sienna and 2 wheelchair accessible vans for a total maximum fleet size of 23 taxis. The increase represents an approximately 21% increase to its taxi fleet overall. II. Background ATL was incorporated June 30, Matsqui Taxi Ltd. and Mission Taxi Ltd. are wholly owned subsidiaries of ATL. ATL, under Service 1 of its licence, can operate in the City of Abbotsford and within certain boundaries of the Township of Langley. Also, when certain conditions are met, ATL can operate its vehicles in accordance with the services set out in the licences of Matsqui Taxi Ltd. and Mission Taxi (1980). All 3 companies are managed as one company with a centralized dispatch system. The PT Board last reviewed an application (AV394-12) from ATL concurrently with those from Matsqui Taxi Ltd. (AV04-13) and Mission Taxi Ltd. (AV03-13). At the time, ATL was seeking an addition of 6 vehicles: 4 conventional and 2 accessible. The Board refused the request, published May 22, 2013, as ATL did not demonstrate a public need and because of other inadequate information (e.g. financial information and accessible service plan). The Board was unable to make a positive finding regarding the capability of the applicant. The Board directed ATL to review the Board s Application Guides and Reference Sheets that provide guidance on the information the Board seeks with applications. In support of this application ATL provided the following information: PDV Vehicle Proposal Business Plan and Accessible Service Plan Municipal Notices Public Need Indicators Monthly Trip Statistics Trip Volume data: all taxis/ all shifts (a.m. and p.m.) January 2014-December 2014 Vehicles on Shift data: all taxis/ all shifts (a.m. and p.m.) January 2014-December 2014 Wait Times data: all taxis/ all shifts (a.m. and p.m.) January 2014-December 2014 Financial Information Disclosures of Unlawful Activity and Bankruptcy Disclosures of Passenger Transportation Ownership Page 2 Taxi Decision Passenger Transportation Board

3 III. Relevant Legislation Division 3 of the Passenger Transportation Act (the Act ) applies to this application. The Act requires the Registrar of Passenger Transportation to forward applications for Special Authorization licences to the Passenger Transportation Board (Board). Section 28(1) of the Act says that the Board may approve the application, if the Board considers that: (a) there is a public need for the service the applicant proposed to provide under any special authorization. (b) the applicant is a fit and proper person to provide that service and is capable of providing that service, and (c) the application, if granted, would promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia. I will consider each of these points in making my decision. IV. Rationale and Submissions (a) Applicant s Rationale The Business model of ATL is to provide response times for customers within a 10 minute window or less from the time of call to dispatch to passengers on board with meter on. The additional vehicles will help it bring a certain percentage of conventional and accessible taxi trips into this response time business model. Further, ALT notes that its main competitor, Central Valley Taxi (CVT), has significant capacity for offering 5 and 6 passenger service. ALT is losing significant business to them due to the lack of conventional taxis such as those with a Honda Odyssey/Toyota Sienna configuration. (b) Submissions & Applicant s Response There were no submissions to the application. Page 3 Taxi Decision Passenger Transportation Board

4 V. Reasons (a) Is there a public need for the service that the applicant proposes to provide under special authorization? Taxi companies who want more vehicles are expected to show that there is a public need for more taxis. Companies are expected to show why their current fleet is not large enough to handle more trips and why they need a specific number and type of vehicles for which they have applied. The Board wants to be satisfied that there is a reasonable connection between the number and type of vehicles requested and public need. Applicants should explain why other taxis in the area are not meeting the public need. To support its public need for 2 additional larger conventional vehicles and 2 wheelchair accessible vehicles, ALT provided the following information: A. Business and Accessible Service Plans Both Plans were identical in composition. The plans with regard to public need outlined the following information: Abbotsford has a new mall, which is the biggest in B.C. Expansion of Abbotsford International Airport Increased demand for taxis due to businesses and jobs moving to the area. Complaints of wait times over minutes. Wait times can increase up to 2 hours in bad weather. An unnamed cancer hospital creates a need for wheelchair vans for the elderly who have to wait for longer periods of time. As well the hospital is complaining about the wheelchair accessible van services. Abbotsford had an 8% population growth since last year and is 3 rd in growth rate in B.C. The plan also listed the Sandman Motel, the Abbotsford Entertainment and Sport Centre (8,000 people capacity), Moxies Restaurant, 3 Pubs and a Food Mall. Page 4 Taxi Decision Passenger Transportation Board

5 B. Taxi Data 1. Monthly Trip Statistics These statistics are provided from January 2014 to October 2014 (10 months). For the months of January to April 2014 and September 2014, the statistical information included the number of trips completed for WC Vans (wheelchair vans) and Non-WC (conventional taxis) and a total of both trips including response time percentages for time bands of 10 minutes or less, minutes, minutes, minutes and 25 minutes or more for all 3 categories. This information for the months of May, June and July was missing entirely. For the month of August, the data for wheelchair vans was missing with only Non-WC data and total trips presented. The applicant indicates that these statistics show the completion time currently with its 2 wheelchair vans with regard to its 10 minute or less business model varies from 60-70% of trips. With regard to its 17 conventional taxis, the statistics show the following against its 10 minute or less business model: Approximately 78-80% are serviced in the 10 minute or less business model 20% are serviced in the remaining time bands. ATL submits that with approval of the 4 additional vehicles requested, response times can be brought back into its 10 minute or less business model. 2. Board Spreadsheets ATL provided monthly data for the period January December This included Trip Volume, Vehicles on Shift and Wait Time Reports for the 1 year period. It reports that there is no saved data that would allow a comparison with 2013 back to 2011 dates, but that the monthly trips statistics on response times gives the information on failing to meet the 10 minute business model. Page 5 Taxi Decision Passenger Transportation Board

6 ATL submits that this data also indicates the following: Shift utilization ranges from 93-98% with other percentages accounting for taxi servicing, repairs, driver illness, etc. The Wait Times report contains a summary of total dispatch trips and average wait times with the following results: - 83% of total trips were achieved within 10 minutes -12% of total trips were within 15 minutes - 3% of total trips were within 20 minutes - 1% of total trips were within 30 minutes - 1% of total trips were after 30 minutes Outside of these statistics the no load percentage for trips was 9% which suggests to ATL that wait times are causing customers to use its competitors or find alternate transportation. C. Individual Petition of Support Forms The applicant included 165 Petition of Support Forms that were titled Re: Support for the additional vehicles that allowed an individual to indicate a reason for their support, their name, address and contact information. These were mainly completed between April and August of Over half of these letters gave only a street address with no city indicated. The remaining forms were in large measure from Abbotsford or Mission. The most expressed reasons for supporting the additional vehicles was that of long wait times, better/quicker service and improved accessible services and less wait times for the disabled. D. Financial The financial information provided by ATL, with regard to its Annual Income and Expense Statements, shows an increase in Revenues of approximately 18.2% between 2012 and Page 6 Taxi Decision Passenger Transportation Board

7 Board Analysis and Findings ATL has indicated that its service ( wait time) targets for both its conventional and wheelchair accessible vehicles are pickups in its service jurisdiction of 10 minutes or less from the time of dispatch to the passenger on board with the meter on. Wait times are subject to many factors such as time of day, weather, traffic congestion, geography, etc. Wait time may be an indicator of public need, but not exclusively and not absent of other factors such as fleet utilization, trip volumes, etc. Whether this target is a realistic one for all its vehicles considering ATL s operating area and specifically for its wheelchair vans is questionable. Information on taxi zones used by ATL may have been helpful in assessing this standard. ATL has relied heavily on its wait time data to support its request for additional vehicles. ATL submitted Monthly Trip Statistics that produced total trip volumes for all vehicles (Conventional and Wheelchair Accessible) for 6 nonconsecutive months in the period January to October These monthly reports also produced the percent of trips completed with certain response time bands. However, the total monthly trip volumes on the Monthly Trips Statistics here do not match the monthly dispatched trip volumes 2014 presented in the Trip Volume Report or the Wait Times Report that used the Board s spreadsheets. The trip volumes included in the Monthly Trip Statistics for the months noted are consistently less than those reported on the latter reports. No explanation of the discrepancy was provided or explained. Given the inconsistency in these two reports as presented, I find the data unreliable and accord it little weight. Additionally, the Wait Times Report for 2014 indicates that 95% of the total dispatched trips were serviced within 15 minutes. This suggests a reasonable performance using this standard of measure. I also find that the Trip Volume Report produced no meaningful breakdown of wheelchair accessible trips. Other data such as that presented in the Vehicles on Shift Report suggest ATL s fleet is operating at or near maximum capacity. However, the lack of any comparable data over other periods of time with the trip volume and wait time data makes it difficult to assess or determine any trends. I also assigned little weight to the 165 Individual Petition of Support Forms. More than half did not indicate a full address and most simply referred to very general reasons such as Page 7 Taxi Decision Passenger Transportation Board

8 Long Wait Times, Better Service or Improve Service for Persons with Disabilities. Only 2 referred to any measurable wait time experience and the pre-completed form did not allow for information to be provided by the respondent s on their usage or potential usage of ATL s conventional or wheelchair accessible taxis. Also, because the taxi data regarding wait times was unreliable and unhelpful, the forms were of less value in helping to reinforce the data. The information in the Business and Accessible Service Plans related to public need was very general and not corroborated. For example, no source verification information related to population increases was indicated and no letters of support were provided from the cancer hospital outlining its issues regarding ATL s wheelchair accessible van service. Listing existing establishments in the area does not provide any meaningful information on public need. Considering the overall evidence, I find the applicant has not provided sufficient data and information to demonstrate that there is a public need for the additional vehicles requested. (b) Is the applicant a fit and proper person to provide that service and is the applicant capable of providing that service? The Board looks at fitness in two parts: (i) is the applicant a fit and proper person to provide the proposed service; and (ii) is the applicant capable of providing that service? The fit and proper person test relates to such matters as the conduct and character of an applicant, and whether the applicant s proposed operations are structured or organized in such a way that the applicant will be able to meet its obligations as set out in the Passenger Transportation Act and Regulations. The obligations of an operator include the requirement to have a licence before providing service and, once a licence is obtained, the obligation to comply with the Act, regulations, applicable orders and rule, and the terms and conditions of that licence. It also includes the requirement to keep care and control over the operations conducted under the licence and to ensure that vehicles are operated properly by the drivers. The applicant is an experienced operator of taxis in Abbotsford, B.C. that has an established infrastructure and plan for dispatch and maintenance of its vehicles. Each of the Directors Page 8 Taxi Decision Passenger Transportation Board

9 has provided Disclosure forms of Unlawful Activity and Bankruptcy and Passenger Transportation Ownership with no discrepancies indicated. The company s National Safety Code (NSC) profile status is satisfactory and their Safety Rating is Conditional with an Audit Status of Unsatisfactory. The Safety Rating is an indicator of the overall safety performance of a carrier. ATL is expected to address the deficiencies found in the NSC audit. The profile status allows ATL to operate under their NSC while addressing the unsatisfactory items from the audit. I note that the information received from the Registrar indicates that ATL received a complaint in September 2014 for failure to use seatbelts when transporting children. In that instance, the company suspended the driver for 1 day. As the Board has noted previously, complaints and/or administrative penalties may not be in and of themselves a barrier to approval of applications. As the NSC evidence suggests that ATL is currently addressing NSC matters, I am unable to make a finding that ATL is fit and proper. The application materials also include a very brief, identical Business Plan and Accessible Service Plans. The plans indicate driver vetting concerning their driving and collision history. Drivers also must now complete training under the Taxi Host Program. However, as pointed out by the Board in the past decision AV noted above, the Accessible Service Plan submitted with this application did not include key components such a Priority Dispatch Plan, Community Information on Accessible Services, Hours of Service or Wheelchair Accessible vehicle usage. I also note the Trips Volume report for 2014 included no separate breakdown on Wheelchair Accessible Trips. These requirements are clearly spelled out on the Board s website under Accessible Taxi Policy and Reference Sheet 7 Preparing an Accessible Service Plan. The financial information included Annual Income and Expense Statements for January- December 2012, 2013 and 2014 as well as Projected Income Statements for 2014 to May These projections, however, did not provide any explanation of the rationale and details of the vehicles operations and the assumptions used to determine them. As a result of the above shortcomings and insufficient information, I cannot make a determination on whether the applicant is capable of providing the service for which it has applied. Page 9 Taxi Decision Passenger Transportation Board

10 (c) Would the application, if granted, promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia? The Board looks at the economic conditions issue from a wide-ranging view. The economic conditions of the transportation business in British Columbia are considered ahead of the economic and financial interests of an individual applicant or operator. The Board supports healthy competition. The Board discourages competition that could unduly harm existing service providers. In this particular application, the applicant has not demonstrated public need to the satisfaction of the Board. As a result, I make no determination as to whether the application, if granted, would promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia. VI. Conclusion For the reasons above, this application is refused. Page 10 Taxi Decision Passenger Transportation Board