Taxi Services Commission

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

EVALUATION OF THE TAXI RANK SAFETY PROGRAM (TRSP)

(EY Sweeney Ref No. 24889)

V3 – 4 May 2015

EY Sweeney contacts:Contact details redacted

Client contacts: Contact details redacted

EY Sweeney

EY Sweeney is accredited under the International Standard, ISO 20252. All aspects of this study will be completed in accordance with the requirements of that scheme. Also please note that EY Sweeney Research Pty Limited’s liability is limited by a scheme approved under professional standardslegislation. A copy of the scheme can be obtained from us upon request

Table of Contents

EY Sweeney......

Executive summary

Introduction

Evaluation objectives and scope

Evaluation methodology

Summary of key findings and recommendations

Conclusion

Introduction

Objectives......

Qualitative methodology

Intercept survey

Secondary program data analysis

The detailed findings

Constraint

Structure of the detailed findings

Evaluation of the TRSP

Achievement of project objectives and outcomes

Sustainable funding options for safe taxi ranks......

Recommendations and conclusion......

Appendix 1: Further Explanation on Quantitative Research Methodology

Validation

Incentives

Methodology Issues

Appendix 2: The field instruments

Interview discussion guides

Intercept survey

Appendix 3: Demographic characterisitcs of the intercept survey sample

Executive summary

Introduction

The Taxi Rank Safety Program (TRSP) is a Taxi Services Commission (TSC) led initiative that provides grants to Victorian councils to improve the safety and amenities of taxi ranks in areas with high patronage. Grants are available to Victorian councils to install new or upgrade existing infrastructure at taxi ranks. The Victorian Government provided $4 million over a four-year period from July 2009 to June 2013 to support the program. Continued funding of $500,000 has been provided for 2013-14 and $400,000 for 2014-15 financial years.

Since the program began, approximately $3.6 million has been allocated to 39 Victorian councils to improve local taxi ranks. The majority of grants distributed to councils have been to councils in regional locations, which may reflect the reliance on taxis in these communities due to fewer public transport services compared to metropolitan areas.

A major independent inquiry into the Victorian taxi and hire car industry was announced in March 2011. The Taxi Industry Inquiry resulted in 139 recommendations being made of which 138 were supported by the government. Recommendation 6.5 pertained to the ongoing funding of the TRSP and Recommendation 6.6 pertained to the need for a set of guidelines to be developed relating to Safe Taxi Ranks.

The TSC commissioned an evaluation of the effectiveness of the TRSP in February 2015 in order to address Recommendations6.5 and 6.6 (in part) of the Taxi Industry Inquiry.

Evaluation objectives and scope

The evaluation objectives and scope are as follows:

  • To determine whether the TRSP has achieved its objectives and outcomes and whether the TRSP should continue for another four years:

–Has safety been increased?

–Have the amenities improved and do they meet community expectations?

–Were communities consulted widely prior to TRSP infrastructure implementations?

–Were the changes supported by the community and did they meet community expectations?

–Does the TRSP represent value for money? (Perceptions of value for money rather than financial analysis)

  • To examine the current funding models that are being used to support the security officer positions at Safe Taxi Ranks (STRs) and to explore the range of options that could be used in future and may be sustainable:

–What are the current funding arrangements for the ongoing investment in, operation and sustainability of safe taxi rank personnel costs?

–What are sustainable funding models for safe taxi ranks?

Evaluation methodology

This evaluation comprised of three research activities: (1) depth interviews, (2) intercept surveys, and (3) secondary data analysis of TRSP grant applications and acquittal forms. These activities were undertaken during the period 31 March to 16 April 2015. A total of 23 depth interviews were held (mostly by telephone) with 4 safe taxi rank councils, 8 councils that had received a TRSP grant within the last three years, and 10 other taxi industry stakeholders. In total 135 completed intercept surveys were conducted with taxi passengers and taxi drivers at five taxi rank locations in Victoria that had been upgraded using the TRSP grant. After council consent had been received, the grant applications and acquittal forms of 16 successful council grant recipients from 2001 to 2014 were collated and analysed for evidence of improved outcomes.

Summary of key findings and recommendations

The following tables present a summary of the key findings from the evaluation and their associated recommendations. They are separated into two sets in line with the overall objectives for this evaluation, one for the evaluation of the TRSP and one for the clarification around sustainable funding models for safe taxi ranks.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE 1: EVALUATION OF THE TAXI RANK SAFETY PROGRAM
Satisfaction
KEYFINDING1:Overall satisfaction with the taxi ranks once they had been upgraded using the TRSP funding, from a consumer perspective (taxi passengers and taxi drivers), was moderate. Overall, 53% reported that the taxi rank was “very good” or “good”, with 31% reporting that the rank was “average”. Passengers were more likely than drivers to rate the taxi rank as “very good” or “good” (61% compared to 46%, respectively). Regional consumers (58%) were more likely to be satisfied with the taxi rank compared to Melbourne consumers (50%).
RECOMMENDATION1: Ideally, in order to more systematically measure consumer satisfaction levels, councils should engage in post implementation feedback gathering activities. This could be achieved by a short survey conducted with users at the rank, or a feedback session held with community representatives and taxi provider stakeholders. The aim of these activities would be to understand the overall satisfaction with the taxi rank upgrades, and to gain feedback on aspects that still need improvement.
Safety
KEYFINDING2: While anecdotal reports from a variety of sources (interviews, intercept surveys and acquittal reports) suggest that the TRSP has led to an increase in safety for taxi passengers and drivers, only two councils had engaged in objective measurement of increases in safety, both of these began after the taxi rank upgrades had occurred and did not include baseline measurements prior to the upgrades.
RECOMMENDATION2A:TSC should consider whether it is necessary to obtain objective measures of safety increases or whether anecdotal measures (such as those collected in this evaluation) will suffice. It is likely that councils will not have the additional funds to warrant funding evaluation activities specific to the TRSP. Therefore, TSC will need to decide if they are willing to fund these activities, and whether the gains from measurement accuracy warrant the funds required, or whether these funds are better spent on providing TRSP grants to councils.
RECOMMENDATION2B: If TSC does decide that objective measurement of safety outcomes for the TRSP is required, it is recommended that the TSC introduce an objective pre-post measurement system as a requirement of holding a TRSP grant. Grant applicants would be required to collect and submit at least one measure of safety at the time of submitting a TRSP grant application: (1) results of a survey administered to ascertain the safety perceptions of taxi passengers and taxi drivers, or (2) copies of local police crime statistics. Successful grant holders will be required to collect and submit the same measures of safety taken after the infrastructure upgrades are completed, and a summary of whether there has been an increase in taxi rank safety from the pre to post measurements.
RECOMMENDATION2C: If TSC decides not to invest in more objective measurement of safety outcomes for the TRSP, then it is recommended that the TSC strengthen the capture of anecdotal evidence of safety increases within the TRSP acquittal form. Councils should be requested to provide at least two anecdotal accounts of the increase (or other change) in safety due to the taxi rank upgrades. These might come in the form of a letter from the local police station, or an email from the local taxi provider or member of the public.
Amenities
KEYFINDING3:Regional grant recipients were more focussed on the provision of better amenities and greater access for community members to taxi services, generally near shopping or train stations, whereas Melbourne grant holders were more focussed on the provision of better amenities to improve the safety of the taxi ranks near late night venues. Regional councils reported improved patronage by passengers, however inner Melbourne taxi ranks were not being utilised as expected, with most passengers by-passing the ranks and hailing taxis straight from the street. In comparison, safe taxi ranks, were being fully utilised and reported improvements in safety, primarily due to the provision of safety officers and the introduction of CCTV.
RECOMMENDATION 3:The TRSP seems most effective when used by regional councils to upgrade or implement new taxi ranks close to shopping centres or train stations. Thus the TSC might consider targeting regional councils for the TRSP, with a focus on the improvements to amenities and the resulting benefits of increased community access to taxis. To improve safety at taxi ranks close to large entertainment precincts and night time venues, especially those in inner Melbourne (within 20 km of the CBD), it is recommended that funding would be best invested in safe taxi ranks and the provision of funding for CCTV.
Community consultation
KEY FINDING 4:Information collected via the interviews with councils and other stakeholders indicates that councils, in general, did consult widely and with a variety of taxi stakeholder groups and community reference groups. The extent of this consultation depended on whether the taxi rank upgrade was part of a larger infrastructure project where significant changes were being made to the city precinct and/or surrounding roads, or whether the taxi upgrade was an individual project; the larger the project, the greater the consultation. The only example found of a council not conducting community consultation was due to the lateness of starting the application process.
RECOMMENDATION 4:The TSC should advise potential grant applicants to start the TRSP grant application process with enough time to allow for community consultation to occur. This could be emphasised on both the website and on the grant application form.
KEY FINDING 5: Information collected via the intercept survey with taxi passengers and taxi drivers who use a selection of the ranks that had been upgraded via the TRSP, indicated that only a small proportion of users (26%) had been aware that the upgrades were going to occur before they were implemented. This suggests that community consultation with the actual users of the specific ranks had not occurred widely.
RECOMMENDATION 5:Councils should ensure that the community reference groups that they consult prior to implementing taxi rank upgrades supported by the TRSP, are representative of the actual users of the ranks, and not just the community in general or specific interest groups
Value for money
KEY FINDING 6:Councils measured “value for money” in various ways including: (1) cost competitiveness of the tender process to carry out the upgrades, (2) the quality of the infrastructure implemented both in the materials used and the skill with which it was constructed, (3) the response of the community in relation to the increase in services offered by the grant, and (4) the fact that the changes to the taxi rank probably would not have occurred without the TRSP grant. Overall, all councils interviewed reported that the changes made to their taxi ranks had represented value for money.
RECOMMENDATION 6: TSC could provide councils with further clarification of “value for money” by including their definition on the website, the grant application form and the acquittal form.
Overall impact of the TRSP
KEY FINDING 7:While the councils took the view that “no news was good news” in terms of community response to the TRSP taxi rank upgrades or new implementations, feedback from the intercept surveys indicated only a moderate level of respondents believed the infrastructure changes had improved safety for passengers and drivers, and improved the amenities and the taxi ranks overall. In general councils could not provide much anecdotal feedback from the taxi passengers or drivers and did not provide any objective data/evidence in terms of increases in safety and improvements in amenities.
RECOMMENDATION 7: TSC should consider whether it is necessary to obtain objective measures of both safety increases (see Recommendations 2A, 2B and 2C) and improvements to amenities, or whether anecdotal measures (such as those collected in this evaluation) and those provided in the acquittal reports, will suffice. It is likely that councils will not have the additional funds to warrant funding evaluation activities specific to the TRSP. Therefore, TSC will need to decide if they are willing to fund these activities, and whether the gains from measurement accuracy warrant the funds required, or whether these funds are better spent on providing TRSP grants to councils.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE 2: SUSTAINABILITY OF SAFE TAXI RANKS
Safety
KEY FINDING 1:Security Officers at STRs perform multiple tasks, some of which contribute directly to improving the safety of the ranks for drivers and passengers.
RECOMMENDATION 1: TSC should continue to support the funding and development of safe taxi ranks, and the implementation of CCTV at taxi ranks, particularly in the Melbourne area, but also in regional areas where there is high usage of night venues.
Current funding models
KEY FINDING 2: Three of the four councils interviewed that operated safe taxi ranks reported that their current funding model used for the employment of security officers was for the council to pay 100% of the costs. The fourth council had only recently transferred their portion of a three-way shared arrangement between venues, the taxi company, and the council, to a model where the venues now pay for 90% of the security officer costs, and the taxi company pays for the remaining 10%.
[Key finding 2 did not require a recommendation]
Previous funding models
KEY FINDING 3: Several models to financially support the security officer positions at safe taxi ranks had been tried and disbanded by councils previous to the current models employed.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The TSC should take note of the reasons why the disbanded models did not work and apply these learnings to the development of a more sustainable model.
Other funding suggestions
KEY FINDING 4: A limited number of other funding models were suggested by the safe taxi rank councils. These were: (1) the TSC should fund security officers; (2) introduce a taxi fare safety levy; (3) introduce a council safety levy for CBD businesses; and(4) introduce a differential council rates system for venues that have a licence after 1am.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The TSC may wish to investigate further whether suggestions 2, 3 or 4 have any merit in terms of providing alternative funding models for the security officers at safe taxi ranks, or the TSC may like to share those suggestions with the appropriate bodies (e.g., councils).
Sustainable funding models
KEY FINDING 5: There appears to be no easy answer to finding a sustainable funding model for the security officer salary component of the safe taxi ranks. Councils have attempted to gain financial support from venue operators and taxi operators, but there has been a large degree of resistance. However it is evident that venue operators and taxi providers do benefit from the staffing of safe taxi ranks in several ways. By implementing upgrades to taxi ranks, and providing the ongoing cleaning and maintenance of these ranks, and in some instances providing funding for CCTV monitoring, it appears that councils are contributing more than their fair share.
RECOMMENDATION 5: A fairer distribution of the security officer salary component of safe taxi ranks needs to be considered by all stakeholders (council, taxi providers and venue operators). TSC, or another more appropriate body, could invest in further relationship building between the three safe taxi rank stakeholders (council, taxi providers and venue operators) so that all stakeholders understand their shared responsibility in improving safety at safe taxi ranks. This could occur by information sessions being facilitated and held at a neutral venue, where all stakeholder groups come together to learn about the shared benefits and shared responsibilities of providing safe taxi ranks. These sessions may benefit from engaging the support of a local safety champion (a well-known and respected local who has strong relationships with the community and the three stakeholder groups in particular, and has local influence – such as a member of Victoria Police).
Non-financial TSC support
KEY FINDING 6: Non-financial ways that the TSC could support councils with safe taxi ranks relate largely to relationship building with other taxi rank stakeholders (venue operators and taxi providers).
RECOMMENDATION 6: TSC should consider what their role and responsibility is in building stronger relationships between councils, taxi providers and venue operators and whether the investment of TSC time (and thus money) into strengthening these relationships contributes to their own organisation’s obligations and goals.

Conclusion

The evaluation found strong anecdotal evidence from the depth interviews with councils and other stakeholders, and moderate evidence from the intercept surveys, to suggest that the TRSP has achieved its objectives and outcomes. Therefore, it is recommended that TSC should support the continuation of the TRSP for a further four years, in line with the recommendations of the Taxi Industry Inquiry, and with consideration of those recommendations contained within this report.