Application Decision Application: Applicant: Trade Names: Address: Principals: Special Authorization: Summary: Related Applications: (for cross reference only) AV2639-05 White Rock South Surrey Taxi Ltd. Pacific Cabs 3 17921 55 th Avenue, Surrey BC V3S 6C4 DHALIWAL, Harchand Singh MANGAT, Adar Singh RANDHAWA, Gurmeet JOHAL, Hakam Singh MANN, Surinder Singh RANDHAWA, Jasmail The applicant has special authorization to operate passenger directed vehicles. This can be viewed in the PT Board Bulletin of December 1, 2004 at www.ptboard.bc.ca/ptb/bulletins.htm. Addition of Motor Vehicles (PDV) (Section 32 of the Passenger Transportation Act) Proposed addition of motor vehicles to increase the maximum fleet size for passenger directed vehicles from 49 to 56 vehicles, of which a maximum of 48 may be non-accessible taxis AV1122-05 Surdell Kennedy Taxi Ltd. AV1185-05 Newton Whalley Hi Way Taxi Ltd. AV1136-05 Guildford Cabs (1993) Ltd. AV1126-05 Delta Sunshine Taxi (1972) Ltd. Publication: The application was published in the PT Board Bulletin on November 30, 2005 Submissions: None Procedural Matters: The Board may approve an application forwarded to it under section 26(1) of the Passenger Transportation Act if the Board considers that, as set out in section 28(1) of the Act: (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. The Board may approve a special authorization if all three provisions are answered in the affirmative. The Board may refuse a licence if any one provision is answered in the negative. Page 1
Board Determinations: Background: Reasons: The special authorization sought by the applicant is approved in part. The applicant is seeking to add seven identifiers to its fleet of 49 identifiers. The applicant s operating area includes White Rock, the Vancouver International Airport, the City and Township of Langley, and a portion of Surrey. Four other taxi providers who share some of the same operating area as the applicant, each recently applied for the same amount of identifiers. Decisions have been made on these applications. I. Is there a public need for the service that the applicant proposes to provide under special authorization? The applicant gives several reasons for the additional identifiers. Tim Land, manager for White Rock South Surrey Taxi Ltd., wrote that the company is experiencing new growth in business which is resulting in longer delays for customers requiring taxis. Mr. Land goes on to say that the company has been experiencing wait times for about the last 6 months, especially during the weekdays from 11:00 am to 6:00 pm. Further, these wait times occur on a regular basis and can be up to 45 minutes. In a letter on file, dated August 15, 2005, Mr. Land states that the company currently does 460 trips per month on a postal contract and that this work will grow as new homes and businesses open. Mr. Land further wrote that the company has 560 new casino trips per month from 2 new casinos in the area. As well, Mr. Land explained that during the summer months, volume of trips dramatically increases due to demands from the RV industry. This industry requires transportation services to the airport and downtown Vancouver. Mr. Land writes that during the last year, 5 of their taxis received airport plates and have left the areas of White Rock and Langley to work at the airport. This has resulted in less cars working in the zones. The applicant s manager states that the company s charge account business has grown by 12% over the previous year. As well, he said that computer dispatch records indicate that trips during the traditional slower months of June and July in 2005 are up by 18-20% over 2004. Mr. Land concludes that these 2 factors indicate an increase of trips performed by the taxis. Lastly, the applicant states that historically, Royal City Taxi Ltd. has operated in a portion of Surrey but is no longer servicing their former City of Surrey territory. The applicant provided a balance sheet, dated April 2004 and a financial income statement. The applicant also provided twenty-five support statements and one letter of complaint regarding lengthy wait times. Upon reviewing the file, I had further questions for the applicant and asked the Branch to undertake an investigation. Based on my questions and request for documentation to substantiate several of the applicant s statements, the applicant presented computerized dispatch call sheets and charge account activities. In analyzing the support statements, I noticed that that there were several duplications and discounted these from the total number of support Page 2 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
documents. This reduced the support letters to 19. I then asked that 1/3 of the remaining support authors be contacted for verification and any information that the contacted person felt relevant about the service. I asked also that the author of the complaint letter be contacted. The support statement authors appear to be users of the applicant s services. The authors range from businesses, such as car dealerships, motels, pubs, Canada Post, a senior citizen home and individual users from the public. Generally, the authors state that they use the taxis on a regular basis and have had to wait up to 20 minutes to 35 minutes for service. One person wrote that they had on occasion we had to wait more than 1 hour. One travel business wrote that many times their clients had to wait for 30 minutes and on some occasions, more than 60 minutes. The Branch inspector attempted to contact Mr. Norris, the Assistant Director of Grounds & Transportation for the Langley School District on two occasions. Mr. Norris had written a letter to the applicant, expressing concerns of taxi service. Mr. Norris wrote that service in the past two years had deteriorated to an unacceptable level and that some students had to wait beyond half an hour for service. The inspector was unable to reach Mr. Norris for further communication. Matthew Berezan, one of the contacted users, stated that overall, waits fall within a reasonable time frame of 10-15 minutes. He further added that he has had to wait for at least 30 minutes or longer on only a few occasions. Preston Chevrolet Oldsmobile Dealership said that they only use the taxi service infrequently now as they have made a staff person available to transport their clients in their shuttle vehicle. Pat Mulcahy, Administrator of Cristina Place, said that since writing the August 2005 letter, things have improved and that residents are not waiting as long. A direct phone to the company has been installed and residents usually get service in about 10 minutes. She did say that before August, waits had often been half an hour to forty-five minutes but that service is now satisfactory. She concluded that service level might drop off during the summer months but gave no reason other than the comparison with service levels of last summer. The contacted representative from the Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 18 described the service on the whole, as fine. The average wait is usually 10-15 minutes and on Fridays and Saturdays, occasionally a wait may be up to half an hour. Ms. Niederlich of Travel Home RV Vacations said that wait times are anywhere from 15 to 20 minutes, and possibly half an hour. However, this person expressed more of a concern regarding the type of vehicle used. Her preference would be for a van type of vehicle that could accommodate passengers and luggage. Monica from Traveland also re-iterated the desire for a van vehicle to accommodate a traveling party and their luggage. She said that many times last year they had to wait from between 25-25 minutes to get vehicles for their clients. She supports the application for additional vehicles in whole, but would prefer van type vehicles. Page 3 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
I find that when first reading the support statements, it appears that wait times of 20 to 35 minutes may be a concern for a number of the authors. However, upon contact, it becomes evident that the wait times may have been a problem in the past, but have since improved. This is reported by the people from Cristina Place, the Legion and Matthew Berezan. Overall, the contacted people state that wait times are reasonable. It would have been helpful to have heard from Mr. Norris directly to confirm the level of difficulties expressed in his letter. I cannot give much weight to these support statements to indicate current lengthy wait times as the authors do not confirm this fact. I do find that there is some support for additional vehicles, especially a van type vehicle from the two people contacted at Traveland and RV Vacations. To demonstrate lengthy wait times, the applicant presented computerized dispatch call sheets for July 3 rd and 4 th, 2005 and a four-hour shift on January 30, 2006 and a one-hour shift on January 16, 2006. Mr. Land had stated that January and July are traditionally slow months, and that they were holding trips for these months for up to half an hour. Mr. Gurmeet Randhawa, President of the company, also commented that they are holding trips during the hours of 11:00am to 5:00pm and occasionally during the remaining hours. The call sheets provided cover these hours. On the call sheets which are numerous, the applicant had pointed out longer wait times, such as 17, 18, 22 and 38 minutes. However, when I reviewed the majority of the calls, I noted that there were a large number of calls that were picked up within the 5 to 15 minute range with a smaller percentage falling into wait times from 16 to 20 minutes. There are lengthier wait times that range from 20 to 35 minutes, but they are in the minority. There are several cancelled trips due to lengthy wait times but again, they constitute a very small minority. The applicant may be holding trips during certain times of the working shifts beyond 20 minutes, but based from the documentation provided by the applicant, these trips do not make up the bulk of reported calls. I find that the majority of calls are being serviced within a 15 minute time-frame which I find to be reasonable. I do find that there are longer wait times occurring, but that they are in the minority. To demonstrate that the business has grown since 2004, the applicant provided records of their charge account business. Mr. Randhawa provided a monthly comparison of charge account trips for 2004 and 2005. As well, the applicant provided charge account activity printouts for each month of the two years. Mr. Land explained how they record their charge business. The charge account business records are for non-yvr trips. Both sets of documents do complement each other in accuracy and verify that the charge account business has grown between 2004 and 2005. I find that I do give weight to these documents to demonstrate that the applicant s non-yvr business has grown since 2004. I do not give any weight to the statement that Royal City has not renewed its Surrey identifiers as a reason for indicating public need as Royal City only Page 4 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
operated in a very small area in Surrey and was contract specific. The applicant states that due to increased business, waits have become longer for clients. The applicant cites waits of up to 45 minutes, especially during the weekday hours between 11:00am and 6:00pm. The applicant presented support documents as evidence of lengthy wait times. Contacted support authors generally agree that recently, wait times have improved and are acceptable. Two recreational businesses support the application for additional vehicles but would prefer van type vehicles. Dispatched call sheets for specific days were provided to demonstrate lengthy wait times in traditional slow months. These sheets demonstrate to me that the majority of calls are picked up within a 5-15 minute response time, with some trips being held over for longer periods of time. The manager for the company wrote that computerized dispatch records indicate trips during the traditional slow months of June and July 2005 are up by 18-20% over the same months in 2004. The applicant did not provide any documentation to substantiate this statement. The applicant gives examples of the new business, such as recent casino developments and Canada Post contracts. Again, the applicant did not present documentation to substantiate the new business. It would have been helpful if the applicant had provided this documentation. The applicant had sufficient time and opportunity to present this information. However, the applicant provided printouts of their charge account business as evidence of growth in business over a two year time-frame. The printouts do indicate that some growth in business has occurred. The applicant is asking for 7 additional identifiers to help reduce wait times due to increased business. Based on the information provided by the applicant to substantiate their claim of public need for seven additional vehicles, I find that the applicant has demonstrated a public need for two additional vehicles. The charge account activity records demonstrate that the company has experienced growth in the local business. Two recreational businesses support the application for additional vehicles and prefer a van type vehicle. It is for this reason that the two new identifiers must be a van type vehicle that can accommodate a driver and 5 passengers. II. Is the applicant a fit and proper person to provide that service and is the applicant capable of providing that service? The applicant has experience in the taxi transportation industry for several decades. The applicant has the business knowledge and understanding of a taxi service. The applicant s financial statements indicate that the company has the financial capability of maintaining and operating a taxi fleet. I find that the applicant is a fit, proper person to provide service for two additional identifiers and is capable of providing this service. III. Would the application, if granted, promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia? In the applicant s operating area are several other licensed taxi carriers. The applicant has demonstrated that there has been sufficient growth in the transportation sector of the applicant s local area. In particular, the Page 5 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
Activation: Special Authorization: Terms & Conditions: applicant has provided evidence of local businesses preferring a specific type of vehicle that best suits their needs. The applicant is cognizant of this fact. The two additional vehicles should provide the public with improved convenience and service without negatively impacting existing competitors. I find that the application would promote sound economic conditions within the passenger transportation business in B.C. A Passenger Transportation Licence must be issued by the Registrar of Passenger Transportation under section 29 or renewed under section 34 of the Passenger Transportation Act before the special authorization approved in this decision may be exercised. Passenger Directed Vehicle (PDV) Maximum Fleet Size: Specialty Vehicles: (a) accessible taxis (b) passenger vans: Vehicle Capacity: Express authorizations: 51 vehicles of which a maximum of 43 may be non-accessible taxis The accessible taxis must be operated in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations including Division 10 (motor carriers) and Division 44 (mobility aid accessible taxi standards), as amended from time to time, and in accordance with any other applicable equipment regulations and standards. Two vehicles, in addition to the accessible taxis, must be passenger vans. These passenger vans may be either accessible or non-accessible vehicles. A driver and not more than 5 passengers. (i) Vehicles may be equipped with a meter that calculates fares on a time and distance basis. (ii) Vehicles may be equipped with a top light. (iii) The operator of the vehicle may, from within the originating areas only, pick up passengers who hail or flag the motor vehicle from the street. Service 1: The following terms and conditions apply to Service 1: Originating Area: Destination Area: Return Trips: Reverse Trips: Transportation of passengers may originate from any point in the City of White Rock and within 10 road kilometres of the City of White Rock and from the Vancouver International Airport. Transportation of passengers may terminate at any point in British Columbia and beyond the British Columbia/United States border when engaged in an extraprovincial undertaking. The same passengers may be returned from where their trip terminates in the destination area to any point in the City of White Rock and within 10 road kilometres of the City of White Rock if the return trip is arranged by the time the originating trip terminates. Transportation of passengers may originate in the destination area if the transportation terminates in the City of White Rock and within 10 road kilometres of the City of White Rock and the cost of the trip is billed to an active account held by the licence holder that was established before the trip was arranged. Page 6 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board
Taxi Camera Equipment: Service 2: The following terms and conditions apply to Service 2: Originating Area: Destination Area: Return Trips: Reverse Trips: Transportation of passengers may originate from any point in the City and Township of Langley. Transportation of passengers may terminate at any point in British Columbia and beyond the British Columbia/United States border when engaged in an extraprovincial undertaking. The same passengers may be returned from where their trip terminates in the destination area to any point in the originating area if the return trip is arranged by the time the originating trip terminates. Transportation of passengers may originate in the destination area if the transportation terminates in the originating area and the cost of the trip is billed to an active account held by the licence holder that was established before the trip was arranged. Service 3: The following terms and conditions apply to Service 3: Originating Area: Destination Area: Return Trips: Reverse Trips: Transportation of passengers may originate from any point within that portion of the City of Surrey north of the New McLellan Road, and that portion of the City of Surrey south of the New McLellan Road and east of Coast Meridian Road. Transportation of passengers may terminate at any point in British Columbia and beyond the British Columbia/United States border when engaged in an extraprovincial undertaking. The same passengers may be returned from where their trip terminates in the destination area to any point in the originating area if the return trip is arranged by the time the originating trip terminates. Transportation of passengers may originate in the destination area if the transportation terminates in the originating area and the cost of the trip is billed to an active account held by the licence holder that was established before the trip was arranged. A digital taxi camera must, no later than February 28, 2005, be installed and operated in each of the licence holder s vehicles in accordance with applicable rules and orders of the Passenger Transportation Board. Board Panel Chair: Ranjiet Bhimji Determination Date: May 1, 2006 Page 7 Application Decision Passenger Transportation Board