MAP 255 - City of Antalya - Erb Institute

Transcription

MAP 255 - City of Antalya
Final Report
Aamer Ali
Santiago Gomez-Bernal
Shaun Herbert
Michael Rockett
May 1, 2013
1
Executive Summary
This report provides an overview of the work done by MAP Team 255 on the taxi
transportation system in the city of Antalya, Turkey. It collects the findings obtained through
our research and visit to the city, explains in detail our recommendations and offers some
suggestions on implementation.
We spent two and a half weeks getting to know the city of Antalya: the transportation system
of the city, the entities that interact with the system and the problems the city is facing with
its new taxi regulation system. During our visit, we conducted interviews with important
decision makers in the system, allowing us to compile important data and frame the scope of
the project. Once we returned to Ann Arbor, we conducted secondary research by
interviewing professors and studying publications from transportation experts. We
synthesized all the information to develop our recommendations and conclusions.
We found that the new regulations on the taxi system have provoked issues in five areas: taxi
assignment, transparency, revenue equity, sustainability and demand fulfilment. The original
taxi assignment is seen as biased and unfair by the taxi drivers that were assigned the low
revenue stands. Some drivers also see a lack of transparency on the way the Chamber makes
decisions related to the system. In addition, we saw evident inequality in stand revenue,
witnessing differences as big as 500 Turkish Lira (TL) per car per day between a low income
and high income stand. Furthermore, we saw sustainability and demand fulfilment as major
concerns for government entities and taxi owners, revealing goal alignment between the two
parties.
After concluding our research and identifying our key findings, we came to our
recommendations which are classified into four categories:




Getting Good Data - the use of tamper-proof meters and taxi lights, heavy meter
auditing by authorities and some alternatives to using meter for data;
Managing the Informal Economy - allowing bargaining from customers, taxi plates
and stand transfers and sales, increasing the collaboration between the Chamber of
Transportation and the Taxi Owners Association, eliminating informal fees for
waiting areas and creating structures to facilitate the positive aspects of the informal
economy;
Improving Operational Efficiency – establishing objective criteria for taxi assignment,
adjusting the taxi-minimum rule on each stand and using technology; and
Obtaining Better Revenue Equity – the creation of additional revenue opportunities
and the improvement of the current taxi operation.
Our recommendations are designed for three different time horizons: less than one year, one
to two years and over two years. All recommendations should be measured by short-term
goals that build their way through a long-term plan for a sustainable taxi system for the city
of Antalya.
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 6
Background/Analysis ................................................................................................................. 7
Lack of Data ........................................................................................................................... 7
Informal Economy ................................................................................................................. 7
Transparency .......................................................................................................................... 8
Operational Efficiency ........................................................................................................... 8
Taxi Assignment ................................................................................................................ 8
Rules and regulations ......................................................................................................... 9
Oversupply of taxis ............................................................................................................ 9
Revenue Equity ...................................................................................................................... 9
Sustainability........................................................................................................................ 10
Unmet Demand .................................................................................................................... 11
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 12
Deliverables ......................................................................................................................... 12
Getting Good Data ............................................................................................................... 12
Recommendation I: Tamper-proof meters and taxi lights ............................................... 12
Recommendation II: Audit meter .................................................................................... 13
Recommendation III: Alternatives to using meter for data ............................................. 14
Managing the Informal Economy ........................................................................................ 14
Recommendation I: Allowing bargaining and use meters to collect ride and fare data .. 15
Recommendation II: Sale of taxi plates and stand spots.................................................. 15
Recommendation III: Collaboration with Chamber of Drivers and Taxi Owners
Association ....................................................................................................................... 15
Recommendation IV: Informal fees for waiting areas ..................................................... 16
Recommendation V: Positive aspects of the informal economy ..................................... 16
Improving Operational Efficiency ....................................................................................... 17
Recommendation I: Criteria to assign taxis ..................................................................... 17
Recommendation II: Minimum taxi policy...................................................................... 18
Recommendation III: Technology use ............................................................................. 19
Revenue Equity .................................................................................................................... 20
Recommendation I: Additional revenue opportunities .................................................... 20
Recommendation II: Improvements to current operation ................................................ 21
Risks and Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 22
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 23
3
Data ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Operational Efficiency ......................................................................................................... 24
Economy/Revenue ............................................................................................................... 24
Works Cited ............................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix 1: Timeline .......................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 2: Stand Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 29
Appendix 3: Stand Modeling ............................................................................................... 30
Appendix 4: City Benchmarking ......................................................................................... 42
4
Introduction
Antalya is a city located on the Mediterranean coast in southern Turkey. The city has become
a popular location for tourism and has seen rapid population growth in recent years. The
current permanent population of Antalya is 1.1 million, which is a tenfold increase from 10
years ago. The city has no large industries and relies mainly on tourism. During the months of
April through September (“tourist season”), the number of people in the city can reach 3
million.
As a city with a large population of visitors, Antalya has a taxi system which is heavily
utilized during tourist season. The city currently has over 3,700 taxis that are regulated by the
use of special taxi license plates. The number of taxis in the city cannot increase from its
current level. As part of a sustainability initiative across Turkey, taxis are not allowed to pick
up passengers just anywhere in the city. Taxis in each of the five regions of Antalya are
assigned to stands and are primarily only allowed to pick up passengers within their zone.
Passengers can get taxis at the stand or by pressing call buttons throughout the city. Each call
button is tied to a single stand and when a call button is pressed, a notification goes to the
stand. Taxis are expected to pick up passengers within 3 minutes of receiving a call. In
addition to their respective stands, taxis are also able to pick up passengers on main
thoroughfares in the city. The portion of rides taxis get from picking up passengers on the
roads is low, however.
There are two primary reasons for the stand structure. First, it allows for all customers to have
the same service level. Without being tied to a stand, the city worries that taxis will
congregate in the city center which negatively affects those customers in the outskirts of the
city. Second, having taxis at a stand prevents them from driving too far without passengers,
thus lowering emissions. Stand and zone boundaries were created based on population. The
breakdown of taxis and stands in the city is in the table below:
Province
Stands
Total Taxis
Area Description
Muratpasa
Konyaalti
133
23
2612
346
Kepez
Dosemalti
Aksu
37
0
2
498
0
14
City Center
West
Region,
increasing
tourism
North Region
Northwest; rural area
East region, low population
Nearly all taxi drivers own their own vehicles. Each stand appoints a single director (who is
also an owner) to manage the stand’s operations. Taxi stand directors report up to a central
Chamber of taxi drivers. UKOME is a commission in the Antalya government which is
responsible for zoning, discipline and being the point of contact for the Chamber. Taxis must
pay fees to both the government and the stand.
Due to the high level of variability in passenger numbers, many taxis in lower-populated
areas of the city struggle to make income in low periods of tourism. The city’s current taxi
system has enough taxis to support tourist season, but the government feels there is an
overabundance of taxis in Antalya. Prior to the city’s rapid expansion, taxis charged a flat
rate of 5TL to take a passenger anywhere in the city. This rate caused taxis to be viewed as an
affordable substitute to other forms of public transportation. As a result, taxi services were
5
highly demanded and that market need caused the high supply of taxis. After implementing
metered fares and expanding the tram and bus services through the city, taxi demand dropped
while supply stayed constant. The city is hoping to further analyze the current situation to
find ways to solve the income inequity issues while not sacrificing any of its larger
sustainability initiatives. The Ross MAP team has been engaged to help with this goal.
The objective of the project is to develop and propose recommendations for an economically,
environmentally and socially sustainable taxi system for the city of Antalya that more
equitably distributes income among owners while also serving the needs of customers of all
income levels and maintaining the national transportation environmental initiatives.
The project’s scope encompassed benchmark studies of other cities’ taxi models and systems
both in Turkey and around the world, e.g., Colombia, Canada, and the United States.
Together with industry and academic experts, the team researched and designed solutions to
various gaps in the system, including:


Lack of methods to obtain and analyze data from the current taxi system,
Rules and regulations for:
o The sale of taxi license plates,
o The assignment and movement of taxis to various stands, and
o Other “informal economy factors” affecting the taxis.
Methodology
To research the current state of the taxi system in Antalya, we began by conducting primary
research in the city. The primary research included in depth interviews with key individuals
and administrative bodies within the Antalya taxi system including UKOME, the Chamber of
Drivers, the Taxi Owners Association, and the Traffic Safety Council. The interviews
covered a number of topics including background information, complaints, technology and
other issues. We continued our primary research by creating a questionnaire for the taxi
stands that would allow us to gather data on their current costs, revenues, issues and feedback
(see Appendix 2). To gather the data, we chose a sample of 11 taxi stands that were
representative of the various income levels of all of the stands in Antalya.
We also conducted secondary research while in the city of Antalya. We began by researching
the taxi systems from four other locations: New York City, Chicago, Rio de Janeiro and
Jamaica. This allowed us to benchmark Antalya against these cities and develop an
understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and issues of the Antalya taxi system. We then
combined our primary and secondary research to define the scope of the project.
After returning to Ann Arbor, we continued with our secondary research by interviewing two
professors from the University of Michigan’s Urban Planning faculty, Joe Grengs and Susan
Zielinski. We discussed the role of taxis in the overall transportation system as well as
sustainability best practices and alternative transportation. From these conversations, we
identified additional secondary research materials on sustainability and paratransit. After
conducting the primary and secondary research, we began to synthesize and analyze the data
to create recommendations. We took a three pronged approach to the data analysis which
included creating a financial model to understand the taxi stand income distribution,
synthesizing and comparing the interview results and identifing possible applications of
6
technology and alternative transportation from secondary research. From this analysis, we
were able to develop recommendations and success metrics for the taxi system of Antalya.
Background/Analysis
Lack of Data
During our first meeting at the UKOME building, we were told that the government had no
numbers surrounding the taxi industry and they had not yet attempted to collect any. The
current taxi system of zones and stands was pushed down to Antalya via the central Turkish
government’s initiative to reduce emissions and smog from roaming taxis. As a result, the
taxi stand owners in partnership with the Chamber of Drivers formed the zones in many
meetings and, potentially, through bribery or other informal methods.
Though the meetings were able to ‘solve’ for the vast majority of taxis’ assignment, the
numbers that the drivers used were all self-reported and anecdotal – no hard data had been
collected or verified. We quickly determined that data could help remedy many of the issues
that the taxi system was now facing.
When we were in Antalya we tried to gather data on:










Kilometers driven, number of rides, average revenue/ride, number of trips or revenue
per car/day, average short or long trip length and proportion of each
Changes in revenue etc. between winter and summer (off-peak and peak) seasons
Number of stands, number of taxis at each stand, number and timing of shifts
Number of diesel versus Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) cars
Proportion of owners to drivers at each stand, profit breakdown between
owners/drivers and expenses, fees to Chamber and municipality
Plate value, slot value at the stand (along with who receives proceeds), costs of the
stand, other revenues from ads etc.
Proportion of bargaining vs. metered fares, reasons for bargaining
Most common destinations for passengers
Number of call buttons, number of waiting areas, costs of waiting areas, proportion of
calls to buttons to walk-up business
Qualitative questions on stand system, Chamber, UKOME, GPS, safety
While we were only able to get a small cross-section of the Antalya taxi system, the data we
collected provided us with enough information to make the recommendations later in this
report.
Informal Economy
During initial interviews with city officials and taxi owners, our team was alerted to the
existence of an informal economy within the taxi industry in Antalya. In this instance,
informal economy is being defined as a set of activities that are legitimate and socially
accepted but do not follow the established rules and regulations (Webb et al, 492). More
specifically, the activities that defined the informal economy in the taxi industry in Antalya
included bargained off-meter fares and informal rents or bribes charged for taxi waiting areas.
7
Through interviews, we found that nearly all taxi drivers currently bargain with customers for
fares and the proportion of a taxi stand’s customer base that bargains varies from stand to
stand. It is unclear how often a driver uses the taxi meter when taking a bargained fare. The
prevalence of bargained and off-meter fares has made it difficult for Antalya city officials to
collect revenue and fare data for taxis and has reduced the transparency between officials and
taxi owners.
The informal economy has also created a fear of corruption and bribery in the Antalya taxi
system due to informal fees being charged for waiting areas. Currently, there are businesses
who charge taxis either an upfront or monthly fee to establish a waiting area on or near their
property. These fees are not approved or regulated by the municipality or taxi administrative
bodies. They also create a fear that there are other areas of the taxi system that may be
influenced by bribery and corruption.
The existence of the informal economy has had positive effects for the taxi system, but
ultimately it has led to a fear of corruption, lack of transparency and trust between drivers and
administration and fighting amongst the drivers. Accounting for these positive and negative
benefits has allowed the team to make recommendations later in this report on how Antalya
should work with the informal economy.
Transparency
After completing and analysing the interview data, the team discovered that there was a lack
of transparency in the taxi system. This absence of transparency prevented UKOME and the
Chamber from effectively addressing the inequity in income distribution and the complaints
of the drivers.
The first issue causing the lack of transparency was the inability to gather data on taxi driver
revenues or fares. As discussed before, this was caused by the administrative bodies not yet
attempting to collect the data and the difficulty in collecting data on bargained off-meter
fares. In addition, taxi drivers have an incentive to report lower than actual income as it gives
them a basis to pay lower income taxes and request fewer cabs at their stand.
Another issue reducing the transparency is the lack of clarity in the assignment of taxis to
zones. Taxi stand directors and the Chamber of Drivers met to determine the taxi stand zones
and assign taxis to these zones. Most zones were established by taxi stand directors deciding
to combine multiple stands into a zone. However, there is a lack of clarity surrounding the
criteria for number of taxis that were assigned to each zone and how taxis were assigned to
zones.
These issues have led to a lack of data, fights amongst drivers and a fear of corruption which
has prevented UKOME and the Chamber from having the necessary data and cooperation to
resolve the complaints and revenue inequity that affects the taxi system in Antalya.
Operational Efficiency
Taxi Assignment
The government of the city of Antalya divided the city into zones, setting a number of taxis
on each one of them. The Chamber of Drivers in collaboration with UKOME had the
responsibility of deciding the number of zones, the size of each one of them (in terms of area
8
coverage), as well as the number of taxis that would be servicing each stand on each zone. To
address this task, and due to lack of data, they relied on the taxi driver’s experience and their
empirical knowledge. Then through a democratic process the Chamber, UKOME and the
drivers negotiated the division of the city.
As in every democratic process there were winners and losers. Some taxis were assigned to
highly profitable stands while some were assigned to the outskirts of the city where demand
and revenue is very low. The lack of objectivity to assign taxis brought discomfort to drivers
assigned to low demand and low revenue stands. According to our interviews, some drivers
saw the process as random or biased and doubts about the Chamber’s transparency are
abundant among these drivers.
Rules and regulations
In addition, the taxi minimum rule that forces each stand to always have at least 10 taxis,
provoked the stands to regulate themselves and their working hours. Though there is a small
set of guidelines the Chamber designed for all stands, they are still partially autonomous and
can create their own rules. For some low demand areas 10 taxis was double the supply
needed, so these stands created two shifts to work: 5 taxis one day and 5 the other, making
drivers work every other day. We learned that the ‘10 taxi rule’ was a way to make sure that
every area was being serviced. However, the number of 10 taxis was chosen in order to
allocate as many taxis as possible; which leads us to one of the main roots of the system’s
problems: the oversupply of taxis.
Oversupply of taxis
Antalya has a population to taxi ratio of 260:1 (that is, for every 260 people in the city there
is 1 taxi). Though Antalya is a tourist city that welcomes around 2M tourists a year, making
this ratio vary throughout the year, it is helpful to see how cities such as New York (622),
Chicago (387) or Sao Paulo (345) (Rodrigues da Silva and Balassiano) have ratios way above
Antalya’s. This is a clear sign that the taxi oversupply is a problem the city has to address.
We learned that the previous system that worked as a free market for taxis (no stands or zone
limitations), and flat rates for all taxi trips, made owning a taxi a very attractive business,
increasing the number of licenses to today’s levels.
Revenue Equity
In initial meetings with Antalya city officials, the team was notified that there is a distinct
inequity in revenues generated by stands in certain areas over others. This hypothesis was
based on complaints directly from taxi owners. Specific feedback included that only one half
of taxi stands in Antalya make money and drivers work every other day during the winter.
Also, during the team’s field research at the stands, multiple stands did not receive a single
call over the course of hours of observation. The city did not have specific data reinforcing
the claims made by the taxi owners, and the team sought to display the actual inequity
between stands prior to recommending system-wide solutions to income inequality.
Currently, taxis make revenue based on fares only. Fares paid by passengers are based either
on meter usage or a bargained rate for the ride agreed upon by the driver and passenger.
There are examples of individual stands or zones negotiating advertising agreements with
large companies in Antalya. These agreements were short-lived, however, with the advertiser
not realizing the value of the advertisements. With only a single revenue source and multiple
9
fixed and variable cost factors (fuel, vehicle maintenance, taxes, stand expenses, etc.), income
varies greatly based on number of customers. Taxi stands operate independently of each
other, with little knowledge or information sharing outside of Chamber activities.
Locations such as the Çankaya taxi stand in the region of Kepez claimed to generate
considerably less income in the winter. This is caused by multiple factors affecting the
demographics of the city. First, the population in the city is nearly tripled in the summer from
the winter, resulting in fewer potential passengers. The jump in population is due to an
increase in tourists in the city, who are more likely to use taxi transportation. The taxi culture
has not permeated the culture of Antalya’s citizens as a frequent mode of travel. Locals view
taxis as a cost prohibitive form of transportation compared to public transit, which is growing
in the city. Also, former Antalya residents return to the city in the summer to visit family. The
number of fares to the airport increase during the summer, positively affecting all stands
while additional fares originating from the airport cause a spike in business for the airport
taxi stand.
Accounting for these differences, the team created a model to measure operating profits per
taxi at a number of stands in different neighborhoods in the city. Data was gathered through
questionnaire and interview data directly from the taxi stands. The model showed a clear
disparity in per taxi annual income when comparing across stands. The full methodology of
the model is included in Appendix 3. The table below summarizes annual income/taxi across
the analyzed stands:
Stand
Migros
Kaleiçi
Pamfilya
Airport
Uncali
Trafo
Tip
Umut
Kutukcu
Park
Cankaya
Calculated
Calculated
Annual
Annual
Operating
Revenue
Profit
158,000
123,000
111,000
83,000
101,000
77,000
107,000
58,000
51,000
39,000
52,000
39,000
51,000
38,000
26,000
20,000
26,000
19,000
22,000
16,000
20,000
8,000
Margin
78%
75%
76%
54%
76%
75%
75%
77%
73%
73%
40%
Sustainability
As stated above, the central government imposed regulations on Antalya and other cities in
Turkey to reduce taxi emissions and smog throughout the city. For our project, we wanted to
work within these regulations and also keep sustainability as a priority for the taxis and the
city.
There were many positive factors to the current system. Foremost, the reduction in circling
and idling of the over 3,700 cabs has reportedly reduced smog and reduced emissions. As
more taxis go to the newer LNG fuel cars, they also reduce emissions. According to Natural
Gas Vehicles for America, “natural gas can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20-30%
when compared to diesel…(NGVC.org)” Also, with so many taxis and so many stands, the
10
distance between a taxi and where they pick up their customers (from a call button or
telephone call) is shorter than if they were to travel from anywhere in the city to pick them
up. Finally, in terms of social sustainability, the plurality of zones provides near equal access
to all citizens of Antalya. On the other side of the equation, the new taxi system also degrades
sustainable measures.
First, the taxi system requires that taxis park at their stands and they rarely are able to pick up
fares on the way back. The empty return trips offset at least part of the benefits from a lack of
idling and circling. The zones are also not economically sustainable for the city’s drivers in
the way that they are currently organized. Many drivers rely on other forms of income from
second jobs, retirement, or other allotments. Also, though there are enough taxis to serve the
growing population, the current criteria and rules around moving taxis between stands will
lead to growing areas being underserved in the future. Finally, with the zones set to expand,
the benefit of short pick-up times will erode.
Overall, we felt that working within the current environmental regulations and evening out
the economic and social sustainable aspects of the system would best serve the city of
Antalya.
Unmet Demand
Customer satisfaction is the most highly regarded success metric for the city as it relates to
taxis. Taxis are seen as a service for citizens and tourists and fulfilling demand was the
primary driving force to the restructuring of the system into zones. Consequently, Antalya is
interested in knowing whether the current growth trajectory would result in degradation of
service across the system.
On top of the rapid 10x growth over the past 20 years, areas in parts of the city are currently
only at 10% occupancy. As these areas gain residents, demand for taxis will grow.
Additionally, the city of Antalya will grow to encompass the entire region of Antalya by
2014. The team researched whether these population and geographic growth factors would
impact the current taxi system.
Antalya currently has approximately 260 people/taxi, which is among the lowest of
benchmarked large cities. The full analysis of benchmarked cities can be found in Appendix
4. This low ratio combined with the statistic that many taxis are looking for additional income
most of the year show that there is currently an overabundance of taxis in Antalya. Areas
with the lowest occupancy rates also have the lowest levels of taxi utilization (rides/day),
showing there is excess capacity where it will be needed in the future. Also, the portions of
the region that will be combined to be part of Antalya will include their own taxis and will
not be folded into the current taxi system for a number of years.
As a result of these findings, the team and city concluded that unmet demand was not an issue
in the near term. Customer satisfaction remains a success factor discussed as part of the
operational efficiency portion of the recommendations.
11
Recommendations
Deliverables
As a result of the team’s research, analysis and solution development, we have provided the
following deliverables to the city of Antalya. These items will summarize our activities and
findings, detail our recommendations and outline steps for implementation and success
measurement. We have completed the following:







Details on what data is necessary to adapt our recommendations to Antalya and how
to obtain such data
Recommendations on how to work within the ”informal economy” where necessary
via legislation change or otherwise
Benchmark studies and list of potential technological solutions pertaining to an
operationally efficient taxi system
Specific details about worldwide city taxi systems
Specific, actionable recommendations around how to create balance taxi revenues
among all stands
Review of current taxi laws along with recommended changes to certain laws to
create more equal revenue distribution
Plan for success measures, risk mitigation and implementation
Getting Good Data
Soon after reaching Antalya, we realized that the most important first step to fixing the issues
the Antalya taxi systems faced was to gather good data. Data is the backbone of solutions.
In order to solve for corruption, fighting, lack of transparency, and revenue equity, data is
necessary. The data can be an unbiased explanation of what is really happening in the system
and will open the door for the equity requested by UKOME and the city government. During
the many meetings that we witnessed or saw pictures of between the Chamber of Drivers and
the government, data could help to clarify the many issues that they raised around taxi
assignment. Data could help determine where to create zones and how many taxis should be
assigned to each. When drivers complain they cannot make a living while other drivers are
making up to 7 times as much as them, revenue and kilometer data could help prove, or
disprove, their point. These are just a few of the issues that data could help resolve.
In addition to solving for individual taxi driver concerns, data will allow for a more accurate
picture of the taxi system as a whole. If UKOME can get data from all drivers, they can
understand the total demand and total revenue for Antalya. Longer term, this could help the
government determine taxable income.
Recommendation I: Tamper-proof meters and taxi lights
After doing research on other cities, we believe that the best way to obtain the necessary data
on number of rides, total revenues, and kilometers driven would come from a smart-meter
(see Appendix 3). The meter will allow for consistent, unbiased data on all of the taxi cabs
that use it. However, it is imperative that the taxi drivers use the meter for every ride,
including for bargained fares. We understand that bargaining is a part of the Turkish
economy and we are not trying to eradicate it. The drivers should enter the bargained fare,
12
whenever possible, into the meter. When they enter the fare, the meter should be “in use,”
which would turn their taxi light off and signal to others that they are not available.
The light on top of the car is a crucial part of our recommendations for two reasons. First, it
will help UKOME or other governing body audit whether the driver is using or not using the
meter when there is a passenger in the car. Second, it would increase customer service and
potentially total revenues for Antalya taxis because customers who are walking along the
main thoroughfares (the only place for taxis to pick up passengers outside of their zone)
would know whether they could hail the taxi or not. In order to get this light, updates to the
taxi fleet are necessary.
Currently, the Antalya taxis utilize different types of meters which may or may not have the
capability of downloading consistent data. When we interviewed the drivers, none explained
the reasoning behind why they had chosen the meters they had and they did not seem to
understand all of its capabilities. We do know that they all have identical fare calculations, so
it may be possible for them to provide the information necessary to the government. If not,
our preliminary research shows that it would cost approximately 600TL for a meter
(tmwest.com). A taxi light would cost approximately 100TL (Ibid). We acknowledge that
there would be additional costs for installation but were unable to determine the cost within
the municipality.
In addition to the taxi meter with a light, we recommend that the taxis also investigate
implementing keypads, printers and credit card machines. The keypads could either be a
laptop or a simple keypad that can help enter numbers into the meter for bargained fares. We
were unable to determine any specific brand or type, but believe this could be an option. For
printers, we found that external printers (assuming that the meters do not have the capability)
were approximately 200 TL (alibaba.com). Credit card machines, whose price varies with
contract, will provide an additional set of data to the meter data. It will also help Antalya
taxis stay current with trend of travelers using less cash.
Finally, we recommend creating a seal to make the meters tamper proof. The seal will
provide the police with a way of checking that the driver/owner did not change any of the
data between downloads. The seal could be a simple sticker all the way to a specific method
of programming or opening the device that only UKOME is capable of doing.
Recommendation II: Audit meter
In order to collect accurate data and to ensure that the taxi meters are being used every ride,
UKOME or a subset of police should be tasked with auditing taxis. Most importantly, the taxi
lights should be off and the taxi meter in use whenever the taxi has a paying passenger, or
fare.
We recommend that the fines for not using the taxi meter are high so as to encourage use of
the meter for all fares. Somewhere in the range of 400-500TL could be a week’s profits for a
driver and thus would lead them to really consider not using the meter. We also recommend
that the number of audits or police enforcing the meter regulations starts high and then tapers
as time goes on and adoption rates increase.
In addition to auditing the use of the meter and assessing fines, the UKOME group should
also collect data quarterly in order to understand demand by zone and total demand. Audited
13
data can lead to improvements in transparency and revenue equity, discussed further in this
report.
Recommendation III: Alternatives to using meter for data
We acknowledge that the installation of new meters with lights and keyboards may be too
large an investment for all taxis. As such, we are giving two alternatives to our main
recommendation.
Our short-term or less expensive recommendation is to collect data outside of the meter.
UKOME could require all drivers to record the data on number of rides, kilometers driven,
and revenues earned. Though there are large questions around accuracy and potential for
dishonest reporting, it would be a great first step in understanding the total revenue for
Antalya taxis and where the demand/taxi ratio is highest and lowest. The reporting could
either be done manually or via some computer system depending on UKOME’s ability to
synthesize and the drivers’ ability to submit.
At the other end of the spectrum is to skip the taxi meter improvements all together and
create an implementation plan for GPS systems. The GPS systems are able to track all of the
necessary metrics, centralize the data, and further customer service by aiding drivers to get to
the destination fastest. With that data, UKOME could reshape the zones to equalize revenues
and better serve customers. The merits of the GPS system will be discussed later in this
report.
Managing the Informal Economy
As defined earlier, the informal economy is characterized by transactions or activities that are
socially accepted and legitimate, but do not follow the set rules and regulations of the
industry. Often the legal reaction to the existence of an informal economy is increased
policing or elimination, given its illegitimate nature. Although increased regulation and
monitoring can eliminate the informal economy and create more transparency within the
sector, there are other benefits that can be achieved by allowing it to exist. University of
Michigan School of Architecture and Urban Planning Professor Joe Grengs echoed this idea
when he stated, “It is not necessary to completely eliminate an informal economy. Informal
economies provide structure and other benefits which may not be apparent so it would be
better to work within it (2013).” Some of these benefits include increasing employment for a
large portion of the population that would be deprived of income without its existence,
lowering the production and consumption costs of goods and services and preventing actors
within the informal economy from moving activities further underground (Portes and Haller).
By preventing actors from moving further underground, the informal economy is maintaining
the flow of information to the government (Portes and Haller). This flow of information is an
effective tool in helping the authorities understand the disposition of those involved with the
informal economy and create structure to maintain social civility among the players.
In addition to providing the benefits listed previously, working within the informal economy
will make it easier for UKOME to gain acceptance of future policy changes within the taxi
community. If UKOME can create rules and regulations that work with the values of the
informal economy, then these new regulations will be more likely to be adopted. This will
help UKOME gather more data and learn about the revenue inequity in the system and
ultimately create acceptable processes to resolve the issue. The following will discuss in
14
greater detail the specific areas of the informal economy that UKOME should work within
and the areas that should be eliminated.
Recommendation I: Allowing bargaining and use meters to collect ride and fare data
During our research in Antalya, one of the biggest themes we noticed was the prevalence of
bargaining in the taxi culture and, to an extent, the larger Turkish culture. After interviewing
multiple taxi stands, we found that the percentage of customers at a particular stand who
bargained for an unmetered fare ranged from 20% at some stands up to 100% at other stands.
Such a high rate of bargaining for every day fares shows that bargaining is a part of the
existing taxi culture and a standard operating procedure for taxi drivers. Although it is a
standard operating procedure, bargaining prevents UKOME from collecting data on the true
revenue that taxi drivers generate and solving the issue of revenue inequity among drivers.
The best way for UKOME to manage the trade-off between bargaining and data collecting
data is to allow drivers to continue to bargain, but use taxi meters to collect ride and fare data.
Bargaining is essential to the operation of taxis as it has become a standard occurrence that is
ingrained within the culture. Banning bargained fares would likely cause backlash from both
the drivers and passengers of taxis. However, UKOME can work within this part of the
informal economy by implementing the smart meters that were discussed earlier. These
meters would allow drivers to enter a flat or bargained fare which gives drivers and
passengers the option of bargaining but also collects the fare data for later analysis. To ensure
that the meter use is being adopted, UKOME should frequently audit that cab drivers are
properly using the meters when they are driving customers and deliver a heavy fine if the
driver is not using the meter.
Recommendation II: Sale of taxi plates and stand spots
Most taxi owners exit the taxi industry and its informal economy by selling their taxi license
plate and stand spot to an aspiring taxi owner. The market value of the taxi plates is typically
80,000TL at most stands, but the market value of the stand spot is much less transparent and
varies according to the revenue generating potential of the stand. The owners view their
plates and spots as an investment or source of wealth and try to get maximum value when
selling. Given this, we recommend that UKOME continue to allow taxi owners to sell their
taxi plates and stand spots and to not place a moratorium on sales as seen in other cities such
as Rio de Janeiro. Additionally, UKOME and the Chamber of Drivers should collaborate to
create a committee that processes and approves all of the sales. This gives UKOME the
ability to collect data on the market value of the plates and spots while allowing the taxi
drivers to continue to capitalize on their investment. This joint committee can also provide
oversight to ensure that the sales are fair.
Longer term, UKOME should consider taxing the sales of taxi plates and stand spots. As
Antalya and its taxi culture continues to grow, the taxi plates will become more and more
valuable, increasing the amount of money owners make on their investment. The
municipality should look to tax the sale of taxis to help fund the administration and oversight
of the industry as well as any necessary improvements to infrastructure.
Recommendation III: Collaboration with Chamber of Drivers and Taxi Owners Association
We recognize that the three administrative bodies that are most involved and have the most
influence with the taxi industry are UKOME, the Chamber and the Taxi Owners Association.
15
Each group has varying subject matter experts and points of contact with drivers. We
recommend that a joint committee is created with members from each group and
representatives from the taxi drivers to be involved in monthly meetings. These meetings
would allow the groups to collaborate on any issues or challenges facing the industry and also
increase the transparency within the groups. It would also create a venue to discuss how to
continue to manage the informal economy.
Recommendation IV: Informal fees for waiting areas
Although there are benefits to working within the informal economy, some parts of the
system can be detrimental to the industry as a whole and should be eliminated. These parts of
the informal economy decrease transparency and threaten to spread unwanted consequences
to other parts of the industry.
In Antalya, we recommend eliminating taxi stands and owners paying informal fees for
waiting areas. These fees fall within a gray area that is difficult to determine whether they a
legitimate rent fees or bribes. To accomplish this elimination, the municipality should
mandate that businesses such as shopping centers, restaurants and others set aside waiting
areas for transportation vehicles such as busses, minibuses and taxis. By creating this
mandate, the municipality will increase transparency in the taxi industry and reduce the threat
of corruption where businesses could charge bribes for waiting areas. This will also open
access to a variety of transportation options for individuals who frequent the businesses.
Recommendation V: Positive aspects of the informal economy
We acknowledge that there are positive and negative aspects to working within the informal
economy. To ensure that the positive benefits of the informal economy outweigh the
negatives, we recommend that UKOME create structures and processes that facilitate and
reinforce the positive aspects. UKOME can begin facilitating a self-sustaining, positive
informal economy by removing conflicts of interest in the current taxi system. When conflicts
of interest are present, distrust is sparked among drivers who sense this conflict. This distrust
can lead to a lack of transparency, corruption or fighting within the system. One potential
conflict of interest lies with the head of the Chamber of Drivers also being a taxi owner.
Throughout our interviews with other taxi drivers and owners, it was noticeable that the
drivers were suspicious of the head of the Chamber and suspected corruption. UKOME
should look to avoid this conflict of interest by reviewing whether a non-taxi owner would
better serve the Chamber due to having an unbiased and uninvolved position.
To reinforce the positive aspects of the taxi culture and informal economy, we recommend
that UKOME and the Chamber create a monthly newsletter and additional education and
training programs for taxi drivers. The monthly newsletter would be used to increase
transparency between the administrators and the owners. The contents of the newsletter could
include what the Chamber and UKOME are working on, new rules and regulations that are
being considered as well as driver tips or education. The addition of education and training
programs could be used to reinforce any changes that are made in the system. With any rule
change or implementation, UKOME should provide training to help the drivers understand
why the change was made and how to operate going forward to avoid breaking the rule. This
could help increase adoption of the changes as well as be a venue for retroactive feedback for
any change that is widely disliked.
16
Improving Operational Efficiency
We believe data can be transformed into actions that improve Antalya’s taxi system. With
data a new, more objective criteria could be set to assign taxis in a more just, transparent and
unbiased way. With data, taxi owners and drivers will understand why decisions are being
made. In addition, thanks to new technologies, they will be able to make their operation more
efficient. These following recommendations might not be easily or quickly implemented in
the short run but we believe they need to be considered if the system wants to be sustainable
in the long term.
Recommendation I: Criteria to assign taxis
We believe the utilization of data is vital to set the ideal taxi revenue for the city of Antalya.
Ideal taxi revenue should be set using the total revenue of the system over the number of
operating taxis. Once this average is calculated each stand must be analyzed to determine the
average revenue of the taxis operating in it. With this datum in mind each stand could be
assigned to one of five levels: far below average, below average, on par, above average, far
above average.
It’s hard to tell without the data how to determine each level, but as a rule of thumb the ‘far
above average’ level should be one standard deviation from the mean. Ensuring that every
stand earns the exact same amount of revenue is practically impossible, so the goal is to make
the disparity as small as possible. For this we recommend two stages of reorganization: first,
bring stands that are on both “tails” of the data distribution closer to the mean; second,
narrow down the difference as much as possible.
The most effective and environmentally friendly way of redistributing revenue is by
modifying the number of taxis on each stand. The idea is to divide the total revenue of each
stand into a number of taxis that ensures the highest revenue distribution equality in the
system. For example, let’s say that the average revenue per taxi is set at 100TL a day and we
have two stands, Stand Alpha and Stand Beta. Alpha earns 800TL per day, and its revenue is
distributed among 4 taxis that work there, making each taxi earn 200TL per day on average.
Now stand Beta earns 400TL per day, and its revenue is distributed among 8 taxis that work
there, making each taxi earn 50TL per day on average. In order to adjust the average daily
income each taxi is earning on both stands the number of taxis on each stand should be
altered. By transferring 4 taxis from stand Beta to stand Alpha we get: for Alpha, 800TL per
day distributed among 8 taxis, for Beta 400TL per day distributed among 4 taxis; on both
cases the average revenue per taxi is now 100TL, on par with our goal. As mentioned before,
ensuring total equality among stands and taxis is ideal, so the main goal of this exercise is to
maximize equality on the system.
One key aspect to make taxi transferring successful is to respect the market economics that
have been acting in the system. License plate values vary widely from one another depending
on the zone and stand they operate. It will be more costly to enter a high revenue stand than a
low revenue stand, and each stand has set its own entry price and operating cost. To respect
the investment of the owners on their taxis and its specific working location, we recommend
an auction system to determine which taxis are relocated to more profitable stands and a
compensation system for taxis that inevitably will see their revenue drop for the sake of the
greater good of the city. Without the pertinent data it is difficult to draw a clearer path on
how to do this, but the main point is that taxi owners have invested money on their cars and
17
stands and forcing them to move without a reward would not be well received and could
translate into a major shock during the implementation phase.
Two additional tools to consider to increase operational efficiency and improve revenue
distribution are altering the size of the zones and rotating taxis through different stands. First,
by adjusting the size of the zones, mainly the length of streets covered, more profitable stands
could be made smaller and less profitable stands bigger, hence changing the demand and
revenue for each stand. Though we think these changes might be necessary, especially for
stands with highly concentrated demand, variations of this aspect should be carefully
analyzed before implementing mainly due to the environmental impact big zones might have
on the system. The bigger the zone, the more distance a taxi has to travel to get to the
customer and back to its stand or waiting area.
Second, taxi rotation could be an additional resource to ensure revenue distribution. Having a
few taxis move once a year from one stand with high revenue to one with low revenue could
work for some individual cases. We think this tool should not be used on a large scale,
mainly because is a very complex system to control and audit with such a large taxi fleet
operating in the city. Furthermore, due to the rotation of personnel, who develop relationships
with clients and learn to optimize routes around a particular stand, customer loyalty and
customer service could also be affected.
Recommendation II: Minimum taxi policy
Forcing a 10 taxi minimum to the stands has led to self-regulation and restriction. As we
witnessed, if the demand is too low, stands that only need 5 taxis will just leave the other 5
without work, and start a shift system, alternating working days every other day. We
recommend making the minimum rule flexible, basing it on a minimum service level. Stands
with high demand and high revenue will never be a problem because they will always have
enough taxis to satisfy customer demand within a 5 to 10 minute wait time, as our interviews
exposed. The problem will emerge with low demand – low revenue stands, on which taxis
will try to avoid working and buy their transfer to a different stand (in the case of the first
recommendation).
Because taxis are providing a public service, customers should always be taken into account.
Freeing stands from the 10 taxi minimum might help diminish the revenue inequality among
taxis as they will be free to move to a more profitable stand, but this will also have a negative
side effect on low income stands, which could remain with very few taxis. To counter this
side effect the system must ensure that all citizens of the city have a minimum standard of
service, by tailoring each stand’s taxi minimum. Market economics will ensure that attractive
stands will always have enough taxis to service customers, so this will only be an issue on the
few very unattractive stands.
With the data on demand of every stand finding the unattractive stands will be easy. They
will be the ones with the lowest demand and/or revenue, and the ones where self-restriction is
taking place. On these stands demand most be analyzed to determine how many taxis they
need to make sure a customer will always be serviced within 10 minutes after the call, which
is the time interval being used in Bogota, Colombia by all taxi companies.
Taxis that are assigned to the stands that have the adjusted minimum should be compensated,
because their revenue will be lower. Ideally the compensation they receive should be such
that when summed with their actual revenue they get on par with the average revenue of the
18
rest of the taxis. The money for the compensation should come from the Chamber and the
government as a subsidy, because these taxis are making a sacrifice for the good of the
system.
Recommendation III: Technology use
Technological advancements have commoditized previously expensive taxi appliances. This
is even more apparent during this era, mainly because of smart phones and their applications.
We recommend investing further the implementation of GPS systems, smartphone
applications (apps) and credit card machines. All countries have different implementation
costs that also vary depending on the scale of the purchase.
Individual GPS systems can now be found for around 230TL (Alibaba.com). Besides
working as a real-time map and compass, they can also operate as taximeters and gather
enormous amounts of data (Chang et al) that can then be used to localize hotspots of demand,
eventually serving as a tool for a future rezoning of Antalya. The centralized call center
project the city has planned to implement in the near future would make GPS systems even
more useful, as drivers would be able to get real-time traffic updates, while clients would get
anticipated waiting times.
A cheaper and more convenient option would be the utilization of smartphone apps.
Smartphone prices vary widely, depending on the plan, the length of the contract and the
desired equipment. On the other hand apps are mostly free and their installation and
uninstallation is practically immediate with little to no repercussions on the smartphone
operability. There is a wide range of apps that work as GPS for taxis, but most of them offer
the same services for customers: find taxis based on location, book a taxi through the app,
taxi tracking and online payment via credit card. All of them are free for customers and
charge an undisclosed amount less than one US dollar for every transaction to the taxi.
We recommend contacting some of the developers of the apps that are already working with
countries that are of interest for Antalya’s tourism: Mytaxi, from Germany; Yandex.Taxi,
from Russia; and Click A Taxi, which operates in almost 5,000 cities1. Apps can be
customized to particular cities and systems, and do not require a centralized hub to operate.
All apps offer some differential value: Mytaxi focuses on customer service, allowing them to
book the same driver they had a good experience with; Yandex.Taxi is all about options,
allowing customers to choose different taxi companies and special services such as child seat
and a non-smoking taxi; and Click A Taxi is all about coverage, claiming to be the only
“global taxi app” (Play.Google.com).
Another technology that might help improve operational efficiency in Antalya is the portable
credit card machine for taxis. Prices vary widely depending on the length of the contract, the
fee the machine charges, the type of machine and the data plan required to function. The
credit card machine provides an easy and safe way to keep track of income, reduces cash
handling by both driver and customer and offers a convenient option for tourists, as they
won’t need to exchange additional money. In the US the appliance known as Square is
revolutionizing easy payments. It’s a tiny device (around 2.5cm3) that uses smartphone
connectivity to accept credit card payments. The Square is free of charge (both shipment and
the device) but charges 2.75% of every swipe. It is an option that should be considered in the
future because this year the company is starting an internationalization strategy.
1
A complete list of Apps with a detailed description can be found via Google Play or iStore by typing ‘taxi’.
19
Revenue Equity
Antalya can achieve more equitable revenue per taxi by increasing the total revenue available
in the system, as well as by using data to make adjustments to the current zoning structure.
The availability of accurate income data will help the city create policies that create more
equitable income across all taxis.
Recommendation I: Additional revenue opportunities
By using the total capacity of taxis across the city in addition to each stand operating
independently, Antalya can create ways for taxis to generate revenue on top of fares.
Method 1: Advertising
In previous years, individual stands have attempted to create advertising agreements with
local businesses. Examples include a short agreement with Vodafone to place a logo on
vehicles in exchange for a monthly payment and agreements with fuel companies in
exchange for discounted fuel. Both of these agreements were short-lived because the
sponsoring companies were not able to see the value of the advertisements due to low
exposure.
If Antalya can expand an advertising program from 10 taxis to over 3,000 taxis, awareness
for the sponsor will grow immensely. UKOME or the Chamber can find a sponsor and handle
the negotiation of terms. The monthly income would be based on advertising in the vehicles
and participating vehicles would be directly disbursed this revenue. Another option would be
for ad revenue to subsidize any Chamber or government fees. Startup/installation costs would
be the responsibility of the taxi owner. Bulk advertising revenue for taxis in the US can be
approximately 15TL daily per taxi (yellowcaboftampa.com). Alternatively, the city can
distribute a greater portion of the advertising revenue to low income taxis to supplement
decreased revenue in the winter.
Method 2: Alternative uses of taxi vehicles
In the winter, some stands in Antalya have only 50% utilization of taxi vehicles. Others
receive only 1-2 rides/day for each taxi. These low utilization figures show an area of
opportunity for the unused capacity in the taxis. Taxis are being used in the following ways in
other cities around the world:

Package delivery: The postal service’s model of centrally receiving packages and then
distributing them to individual destinations can be too slow for some time-sensitive
parcels. Taxis can assist with this last mile delivery by either working with the postal
service to deliver packages for a flat fee or working directly with customers to pick up
packages and deliver them to the destination at the taxi meter rate. The city of Austin,
TX in the United States currently has a package fleet as a service of one of the private
taxi companies (yellowcabaustin.com).

Shared Ride Services (sometimes referred to as paratransit): Taxis offer a level of
convenience over public transportation by providing direct point to point service,
rather than customers needing to travel to a pre-set location for pickup and travel from
their drop-off point to their final destination. Many cities are implementing a shared
ride system which merges the convenience of a taxi with the cost-effectiveness of
20
public transportation. Because many customers go to common destinations (airport,
shopping, hospital), a central service (e.g., taxi stand director) can take calls from
multiple people going to these locations and arrange for a set pickup time for all of
them. The passengers then share the taxi fare. This encourages customers to use taxis
instead of public transportation. Also, some families have an interest in their children
taking taxis to school when they are late or there is an exam, but there are limitations
on taxis taking children to school. A review of these rules could show an additional
opportunity for additional revenue by having shared rides to school as they have
implemented in multiple cities in India.

Tourism: A competitor which is growing market share against taxis is a new “rent-acar” service which includes a driver. These services are used by tourists to have a
personal driver for the duration of their stay. The government can also work on a
certification program that taxi owners can take to become certified to guide tours of
the city of Antalya by taxi. As the taxi goes to the popular tourist destinations in the
city (museum, mini-city, aquarium), the driver can give guided tours. Customers can
see these certified taxis as a way to understand the city better at a slight premium to
normal taxis.
Recommendation II: Improvements to current operation
At its core, revenue is a function of price of the service and quantity sold (R = P*Q). Because
of the standardization of fares and allowance of bargained fares (which are often lower than
metered fares), price remains unchangeable in the equation. This leaves quantity as a lever to
increase revenue. The city can try to increase the number of rides taken (quantity) by
encouraging more of a taxi culture in the city. Taxi stands cited a lack of awareness of taxi
services as a potential cause of decreased business. The city can increase demand for taxis
among locals by showing price-competitiveness and among tourists by increasing taxi stand
awareness. In addition, the current operation includes opportunities to restructure the system
after fully analyzing data from taxi stands.
Method 1: Increase taxi awareness
Antalya citizens believe that since the implementation of metered fares to replace flat fares,
taxis are no longer a cost-effective option for transportation. The airport posts a board of fares
to different cities to educate customers. Taxi stands can do something similar. By creating a
list of estimated fares to popular destinations at each of the call buttons, stand locations, or
public transportation stops, customers will be better educated on whether taxis are too
expensive. In some cases, the cost of the taxi in conjunction with the convenience may
outweigh any minor difference in fare between the taxi and the public transportation option.
Method 2: Increase taxi stand awareness
Antalya’s system of taxi stands and call buttons is unique among large cities. Tourists do not
necessarily have full information of the way the system works when first arriving in Antalya.
As such, they may take other forms of transportation around the city (such as private car or
hotel shuttle) because they are easier to relate to. The city has an opportunity to increase
awareness of the stand model by printing a map that has the locations of all the stands across
the city. This map would show each of the zones and where call buttons are located. It would
also contain the service level commitments (e.g., press the call button and wait for a response
within 3 minutes). The cost of these maps could be subsidized through placing
21
advertisements on the maps. Stand maps could be a separate insert or part of the original map
that is included as part of the Antalya tourism package.
Method 3: Using data to reevaluate zone structure
As data around stand income improves, UKOME can make more informed decisions
regarding zoning and stand placement. The team’s small sample of stands showed high
variability between stands, so this exercise should be continued throughout the city.
Originally, zones were based solely on population. In the future, the government can use
other metrics (e.g., income, number of rides) to adjust zones. Zones with fewer rides/day or
less income/day could be combined with other zones to become a larger service area.
Because the analysis would provide total income and income/vehicle, the government could
evaluate other policies and how effective they can be going forward. For example, there is
currently a mandate on having no fewer than 10 taxis at each stand. This rule negatively
affects stands in the outskirts of the city which get very few rides in the winter. By looking at
the average income across all taxis, it is apparent that the little work they receive is a result of
an abundance of taxis at the stand. By creating multiple minimums, the stands with high
income would be able to spread that income across more vehicles. For example, the minimum
number of taxis at the airport would be significantly higher than the minimum in the outskirts
of the city. This would create income equity for each taxi throughout the year. Any
alterations to minimum numbers of taxis should be created after also considering any
potential loss of customer service in the busy period.
The above three methods will help increase income for taxi owners while still staying within
the current system. These recommendations can be implemented with the taxi stand Chamber
and UKOME to ensure that all parties are being consulted prior to any large scale changes.
Risks and Mitigation
In order to successfully carry out the recommendations we have given, it is important to be
aware of the major risks our initiatives might face and be prepared to mitigate them before
the implementation starts.
One of the main risks we see is possible resistance from two of the main actors of the system:
taxi owners and the Chamber. As we witnessed during our interviews, stands that are earning
high revenue are pleased with the current system and might be reluctant to change.
Furthermore, successfully implementing changes in the system would require a lot of work
from the Chamber and due to the political nature of this entity as well as some conflicts of
interest that we saw, they might become a bottleneck in the process. In order to mitigate this
risk we think communication is key. UKOME must involve as many taxi drivers as possible
as well as the taxi owners’ association in the planning and implementation of all initiatives.
The goal is to make the process as transparent as possible, making sure every actor knows
these changes will help the greater good of the system, despite the inevitable individual
sacrifices that will take place.
In addition, a risk within government is power changing hands and new regulations. Changes
imposed by the national government, for example, can affect the successful implementation
of every city initiative. In order to mitigate this risk Antalya should focus on short-term
success while positioning themselves for long-term efficiency. In other words, all
implementations should be judged by short-term goals that work their way consistently
towards a long-term objective. Positioning UKOME as a strong institution, with clear and
22
transparent plans for the future will ensure a more solid stance that would make all plans
more resilient to environmental shocks and change.
Furthermore, because the taxi system is part of a bigger and more complex transportation
system all methods must be carefully observed through time. The bus, mini-bus and tram
systems, to name a few, may gain popularity affecting the viability and effectiveness of the
taxi system. The best way to mitigate this risk is to clearly position the taxi system as a
differentiated alternative. Increasing awareness of the benefits taxis have as well as
promoting a taxi culture to citizens and tourists will help the system resist consumption
changes on the other transportation methods.
Lastly, another risk that needs to be addressed is the speed and depth of technology adoption.
Relying on technology without taking customer adoption into account can be very costly for
the system. Knowing the customer’s familiarity with new technologies and their overall
utilization of, for example, smartphones or credit cards is a necessary step that must come
into the planning phase, before committing to any new technology. Using pilot projects
before implementing high-tech solutions can be a safe and cheap way of testing before a
large-scale implementation. Starting with low-tech initiatives prior to jumping to high-tech is
also recommendable, as it will also help to test the ground and the customers’ response to the
initiatives.
Conclusion
Putting all of our recommendations together will take a series of distinct steps in conjunction
with the drivers’ Chamber and the many taxi owners throughout Antalya. For each set of
recommendations, we have broken down the implementation into short term, medium term,
and long term. Short term is between 6-12 months, medium term 1-2 years and long term is
over 2 years.
In addition, for each set of recommendations we give examples of success metrics for
UKOME to use.
Data
In the short term, we think it best for UKOME to set the requirements for meter usage and
acquire tamper-proof meters. The seal may require a complete meter overhaul so it may be
worth it to wait until the taxis also install a rooftop light connected with the meter. We
recommend the light be added within 1-2 years. If the lights will not work with the current
meters, it might be worth it to install the new system all together – meter, light, keypad, seal,
and additional pieces such as printers and credit card machines. In the long term, Antalya
should consider GPS systems for all taxis that include meters. The GPS will allow for further
data collection and also provide better customer service for customers complaining about
circuitous routes and long waits in traffic. Also, if Antalya moves to a central call system, the
GPS will allow for the dispatch to send the nearest cab to someone calling for one, reducing
emissions and increasing efficiency.
The success of the implementation can be measured in the following ways:



Percentage of taxis reporting accurate data on rides, kilometers, and revenue
Implementation of new UKOME taxi meter auditing system within one year
Percentage of taxis using new meter with lights at all times (fewer fines)
23
Operational Efficiency
There are many quick wins for the city of Antalya to make the taxi operations more efficient.
UKOME should immediately partner with the Chamber to create the monthly newsletter and
the map of the city with taxi stands, tourist attractions, and advertisements for local
businesses. Within two years, UKOME should analyze the data they have collected and start
to create assignment criteria as described above. The criteria may need to adapt over time, but
taxis will need to move sooner rather than later to start to equate revenues. Further, UKOME
should adjust minimum taxi rules for the stands.
In the long term, UKOME and the Chamber should completely overhaul the criteria for
reassignment of taxis and transfer of plates. There are many options on the table about fees,
taxes, and methods of transfers but we believe with the correct data Antalya will be able to
decide which is best for the municipality. Finally, as with implementation of data
recommendations, we suggest that the city begin integrating their taxi system with
smartphones, apps, and other GPS features.



Newsletter and maps distributed to the stands within first year
Clear, objective, and documented criteria for assigning and moving taxis
Plan for technological advancement within first year
Economy/Revenue
Since revenue equity was the main driver behind our investigation, we believe that UKOME
should begin working on our recommendations immediately. First, UKOME and the
Chamber should host open meetings with many drivers, or a rotation of drivers for
consecutive monthly meetings, to start to get buy-in for the many changes coming to the
system. Once established, the new UKOME auditing group should audit policy updates and
use of the meter. Finally, as it will take perhaps the most time, UKOME should immediately
start exploring advertising partners for the taxis.
In the medium term, UKOME should develop new rules for the waiting areas and work with
landowners to strike deals. We also recommend that the fare signs be posted within 1-2 years
to drum up more business. Longer term, we suggest UKOME investigate paratransit/shared
ride systems and other revenue-increasing schemes including package delivery.



Fewer complaints from the drivers
Reduction in revenue gap between stands
Additional revenue above regular taxi fares (ads, paratransit, package delivery, etc.)
By implementing these recommendations within reasonable time, the city of Antalya can see
both short and long-term success with in the taxi system. Measurable success is the key to
long term sustainability of the taxi system.
24
Works Cited
Chang, Han-wen, Yu-chin Tai, Hsiao-wei Chen, Jane Yung-jen Hsu. “iTaxi: Context-Aware
Taxi Demand Hotspots Prediction Using Ontology and Data Mining Approaches”
National Taiwan University. 2008 w.csie.org/~yctai/papers/iTaxi.pdf. Web. 27 Apr 2013.
“Click A Taxi.” Google Play. Google, 2013
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.clickataxi&feature=search_result#?t=
W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5jbGlja2F0YXhpIl0. Web. 22 Apr 2013
“GPS Taxi Meter.” Alibaba.com. 2013. http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/gps-taximeter.html. Web. 28 Apr 2013
Grengs, Joe. A Personal Interview. 10 Apr 2013.
Ibid.
“NGVs and the Environment.” NGV for America, 2013. Web.
http://www.ngvc.org/about_ngv/ngv_environ.html. Web. 29 Apr 2013.
Portes, Alejandro and William Haller. “The Informal Economy.” Handbook of Economic
Sociology. 2nd Edition. (2005): 403-426. Print.
Rodrigues da Silva, Antônio Nélson and Ronaldo Balassiano. “Global Taxi Schemes and
their Integration in Sustainable Urban Transport Systems” – Prepared for Modernizing and
‘Greening’ Taxi Fleets in Latin American Cities meeting - Rio de Janeiro, 2011.
“Taxi Meters.” TMWest Taxi Meter & Sign Shop. 2010. www.tmwest.com/products/1/. Web.
19 Apr 2013.
“Taximeter Printer.” Alibaba.com. 2013. www.alibaba.com/products/taximeter_printer/-2118.html. Web. 28 Apr 2013.
25
Webb, Justin, Laszlo Tihanyi, R. Duane Ireland, and David Sirmon. “You Say Illegal, I Say
Legitimate: Entrepreneurship in the Informal Economy.” Academy of Management Review
34.3 (2009): 492-510. Online.
“Package Express.” Yellowcabaustin.com. 2012.
http://www.yellowcabaustin.com/package_express.aspx Web. 2012
“Yellow Cab Company Advertising Program.” Yellowcaboftampa.com.
http://www.yellowcabaustin.com/package_express.aspx. Web.
26
Appendix
27
Appendix 1: Timeline
Timeline
The team has conducted additional research and analysis since returning to campus.
Engagement
Definition
Define Scope
Preliminary US taxi
research
Complete project
timeline
Solution
Space
Development
Primary
Research
Secondary
Research
Interviews with
govt and UKOME
Research on other
countries
Created taxi stand
income distribution
Document Antalya
recommendations
Taxi stand data
collection
Interviews with U of
M urban planning
faculty
Synthesize
interview results
Build taxi income
financial model
Match technology
and other city best
practices to
Antalya’s needs
Identify key metrics
for tracking success
Taxi stand
questionnaire
developed
Sustainability and
alternative
transport research
Analysis
Document initial
findings
Letter of Engagement
Completed
Midpoint Presentation
Completed
Final Presentation
Final Report
3
28
Appendix 2: Stand Questionnaire
Questionnaire:
- Taxi information:
o Number of taxis at stand
 Schedule (shift timings, number of taxis in day vs. night)
 Number of Diesel cars and LNG cars
o Number of rides/day
o Amount of revenue/day (winter and summer)
o Proportion of owners to drivers
o Revenue split between owner/driver/expenses
o Ride split (short vs. long)
 How far is a typical “short” fare (km)
 How far is a typical “long” fare (km)
o Plate value
o What destinations do you typically take passengers? (hospital, school,
business)
 How many of your rides are to each of these places?
o How frequent is bargaining?
o Any other sources of revenue (like advertising)?
o Any methods of tracking rides today (which driver is assigned to each call,
how many calls are arriving, revenues)?
o How often are taxis driving empty?
-
-
Stand information
o Zone/Region
o Number of call buttons
o Slot value (who gets this fee)
o Monthly costs to drivers
o Call breakdown (button calls vs. phone calls)
o Number of waiting areas and fees for waiting areas
Other fees (chamber, municipality)
Thoughts on current system (1-10 rating)
o Any changes to your stand from previous system to current system?
What changes and suggestions to improve system?
How do you like working with the chamber?
Any concerns or feedback on traffic police?
Do drivers currently have issues with safety?
Any ideas about technology?
o Would you pay for GPS in cars?
o Would cameras in cars be helpful?
29
Appendix 3: Stand Modeling
Overall, we took information from our stand interviews and questionnaires to obtain the data
in the following tables. The data is all self-reported by the drivers/owners and not
corroborated by any meter or other data source.
For each stand we recreated a “calculated” revenue and profit table and a “reported” revenue
and profit table. The latter used what the drivers reported to us as their daily or monthly
income if they offered it which, generally, was much lower. The calculated revenue comes
from multiplying out their average fares, distances, and number of rides per day, depending
on which information they gave us.
For all of the stands we used:
Universal Inputs
Fuel Cost/Litre
Km/Litre
Flag Drop Fare
Fare per km
Annual Car Maint
Cost (TL)
4.30
14.29
2.20
2.40
1,250.00
To calculate distance from reported fares we used the following formula:
((Revenue-Flag Drop Fare)/(Fare per km))*# of trips reported
Assumption 1: Overnight shifts do not add additional fares to stand total due to lack of
business
Assumption 2: Drivers work 330 days a year unless otherwise specified
Assumption 3: There are 3 seasons of 4 months each – Off Peak, Shoulder, and Peak.
Shoulder season was calculated as halfway between Off Peak and Peak seasons.
Further Assumptions are on the pages with specific stands.
Summary Tables:
Calculated
Calculated
Annual
Annual
Operating
Stand
Revenue
Profit
Migros
158,000
123,000
Kaleiçi
111,000
83,000
Pamfilya
101,000
77,000
Airport
107,000
58,000
Uncali
51,000
39,000
Trafo
52,000
39,000
Tip
51,000
38,000
Umut
26,000
20,000
Kutukcu
26,000
19,000
Park
22,000
16,000
Cankaya
20,000
8,000
Margin
78%
75%
76%
54%
76%
75%
75%
77%
73%
73%
40%
Stand
Pamfilya
Kutukcu
Kaleiçi
Tip
Uncali
Umut
Airport
Migros
Cankaya
Trafo
Park
Reported
Reported
Annual
Annual
Operating
Revenue
Profit
Margin
87,000
66,000
76%
38,000
29,000
76%
33,000
25,000
76%
33,000
23,000
70%
29,000
21,000
72%
25,000
19,000
76%
23,000
16,000
70%
20,000
14,000
70%
16,000
12,000
75%
15,000
11,000
73%
12,000
8,000
67%
30
Station 1 Kutukcu
Calculated:
STATION 1
Kutukcu
Trips
Stand Total
Car
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Stand Total
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Stand Total
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
Fare
30
6
10.00
10.00
30
6
10.00
10.00
40
8
10.00
10.00
50
10
10.00
10.00
Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 5 cars daily maitenance
Operating Income
300
360
25 108.36
18.94
60
72
5
21.67
3.79
Annual Rev
300
60
6,600
400
80
8,800
500
100
11,000
360
72
25
5
108.36
21.67
18.94
3.79
260
52
18
4
78.26
15.65
18.94
3.79
325
65
23
5
97.83
19.57
18.94
3.79
26,400
Annual Operating Profit
35
173
35
3,799
303
61
6,662
383
77
8,431
Keyed Info
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed Revenue
Average Ride Km
Average Fare
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
5
N/A
5
10
6
8
10
18,892
Reported:
STATION 1
Kutukcu
Trips
Stand Total
Car
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
Fare
30
6
14.40
14.40
30
6
14.40
14.40
40
8
14.40
14.40
50
10
14.40
14.40
Annual Rev
Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 5 cars daily maitenance Operating Income
432
300
21
90
18.94
86
60
4
18
3.79
432
86
9,504
576
115
12,672
720
144
15,840
38,016
300
60
21
4
90
18
18.94
3.79
407
81
28
6
122
24
18.94
3.79
508
102
36
7
153
31
18.94
3.79
65
323
65
7,101
435
87
9,562
548
110
12,057
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed Revenue
Average Fare
Average Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
5
N/A
14.40
5
6
8
10
28,720
31
Station 2 Çankaya
Assumption: Despite 5 being on and 5 being off every day, we calculated as though they were all
there every day (equal).
Calculated:
STATION 2
Cankaya
Airport
Otogar
Health
Cite Cite
Migros
Daily Trips Fare
1
6
8
3
2
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
55.00
15.00
18.00
8.00
25.00
20
2
18.15
18.15
30
3
18.15
18.15
40
4
18.15
18.15
Operating Income
55
50
4
15.05
90
120
8
36.12
144
320
22
96.32
24
30
2
9.03
50
100
7
30.10
363
620
43
186.62
34.25
36
62
4
Annual Rev
363
36
4,417
545
54
6,625
726
73
8,833
19,874
620
62
43
4
186.62
18.66
34.25
3.42
930
93
65
7
279.93
27.99
34.25
3.42
1240
124
87
9
373.24
37.32
34.25
3.42
142
14
142
14
1,729
230
23
2,802
319
32
3,875
Days Worked
Cars
Claimed Revenue
Average Fare
Airport Distance
Otogar Distance
Health Ctr Distance
Cite Cite Distance
Migros Distance
Total Seasons
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
365
10
25-30
18.15
25
10
20
5
25
3
2
3
4
8,407
Reported:
STATION 2
Cankaya
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
Fare
20
2
30
3
40
4
Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 10 cars daily maitenance Operating Income
300
213
15
64
34.25
202
30
21
1
6
3.42
20
3,650
2,452
15.00
450
320
22
96
34.25
319
15.00
45
32
2
10
3.42
32
5,475
3,886
15.00
600
427
30
128
34.25
437
15.00
60
43
3
13
3.42
44
7,300
5,321
15.00
15.00
Annual Rev
16,425
Days Worked
Cars
Claimed Revenue
Average Fare
Offpeak Stand Trips
Total Seasons
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
365
10
30
15
20
3
2
3
4
11,659
32
Station 3 Pamfilya
Assumption: 3 cars stationed overnight so 10-15 reported rides are reduced to 10 for calculations
Calculated:
STATION 3
Pamfilya
Trips
Short
Long
Really Long
Daily Total
Per Car Off Peak
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
Fare
80
79
1
160
10
10
30
100
160
10
20.44
20.44
240
15
20.44
20.44
320
20
20.44
20.44
Profit before Commission
800
520
36
157
2,370
1,830
128
551
100
82
6
25
3,270
170
732
60.61
2,477
204
155
3,270
204
22,481
4,905
307
33,722
6,540
409
44,963
Annual Rev 101,165.63
2,432
152
170
11
732
46
60.61
3.79
3,648
228
255
16
1,098
69
60.61
3.79
4,863
304
340
21
1,464
91
60.61
3.79
2,477
155
17,033
3,746
234
25,757
5,016
313
34,482
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Fare
Avg Short Fare
Avg Long Fare
Extra Long Fare
Stand Short Trips
Stand Long Trips
Stand Extra Long Trips
Total Stand Trips/day
Total Seasons
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
16
175
350
20.44
10
30
100
80
79
1
160
3
10
15
20
77,271
Reported:
STATION 3
Pamfilya
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
Fare
160
10
240
15
320
20
Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 16 cars daily maitenance Profit before Commission
2,800
2,040
143
614
60.61
2,125
175
128
9
38
3.79
133
19,250
14,612
17.50
4,200
3,060
214
921
60.61
3,218
17.50
263
191
13
58
3.79
201
28,875
22,126
17.50
5,600
4,080
286
1,228
60.61
4,311
17.50
350
255
18
77
3.79
269
38,500
29,640
17.50
17.50
Annual Rev
86,625
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Fare
Total Stand Trips/day
Total Seasons
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
16
175
350
17.50
160
3
10
15
20
66,378
33
Station 4 Umut
Assumption: 3 cars are overnight but still used 6 rides/day/car based on owner feedback
Calculated:
STATION 4
Umut Taxi
Trips
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
Fare
Off Peak
Off Peak
60
6
Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 10 cars daily maint
600
390
27
117
60
39
3
12
6,600
10
800
520
36
157
10
80
52
4
16
8,800
10 1,000
650
46
196
10
100
65
5
20
11,000
10
10
80
8
100
10
Annual Rev
26,400
445
44
4,892
37.88
606
3.79
61
6,662
37.88
766
3.79
77
8,431
37.88
3.79
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Fare
Total Seasons
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
10
60
90
10
3
6
8
10
19,985
Reported:
STATION 4
Umut Taxi
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
Fare
60
6
80
8
100
10
Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 10 cars daily maint Profit before Commission
10.00
600
390
27
117
37.88
445
10.00
60
39
3
12
3.79
44
6,600
4,892
10.00
800
520
36
157
37.88
606
10.00
80
52
4
16
3.79
61
8,800
6,662
9.00
900
567
40
171
37.88
692
9.00
90
57
4
17
3.79
69
9,900
7,607
Annual Rev
25,300
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average OffPeak Fare
Average Peak Fare
Total Seasons
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
10
60
90
10
9
3
6
8
10
19,161
34
Station 5 Migros
Assumption: For calculated table, we multiplied by 2 and then 2 again, based on translator’s feedback.
Calculated:
STATION 5
Migros
Trips
Fare
Short
Long
16
8
24
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
10.60
23.80
34.40
Fare
480
24
170
112
8
34
190
144
10
43
360
256
18
77
7,200
5,120
358
1,541
360
256
18
77
39,600
15.00 9,600
6,827
478
2,055
15.00
480
341
24
103
52,800
15.00 12,000
8,533
597
2,569
15.00
600
427
30
128
66,000
15.00
15.00
640
32
800
40
Annual Rev 158,400.00
75.76
5,583
279
30,707
75.76
7,469
3.79
373
41,082
75.76
9,356
3.79
468
51,456
75.76
3.79
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Car Short Trips
OffPeak Car Long Trips
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
20
40-50
N/A
15
3
3.5
9
16
8
24
32
40
123,245
Reported:
STATION 5
Migros
Trips
Short
Long
Fare
4
2
6
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
10.60
23.80
7.50
Fare
120
6
160
8
200
10
42
28
2
8
48
36
3
11
75.76
45
64
4
19
900
530
37
160
75.76
665
45
64
4
19
3.79
22
4,950
2,414
7.50 1,200
707
49
213
75.76
912
7.50
60
35
2
11
3.79
46
6,600
5,013
7.50 1,500
883
62
266
75.76
1,158
7.50
75
44
3
13
3.79
58
8,250
6,371
7.50
7.50
Annual Rev
19,800
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Average Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
20
45
7.5
3
3.5
9
4
2
6
8
10
13,799
35
Station 6 Uncali
Calculated:
STATION 6
Uncali
Trips
Fare
Short
Long
6
2
8
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
11.80
26.20
38.00
Fare
128
8
71
48
3
14
52
40
3
12
123
88
6
26
1,971 1,408
99
424
123
88
6
26
13,552
15.40 2,464 1,760
123
530
15.40
154
110
8
33
16,940
15.40 2,957 2,112
148
636
15.40
185
132
9
40
20,328
15.40
15.40
160
10
192
12
Annual Rev
50,820
60.61
1,487
93
10,222
60.61
1,874
3.79
117
12,881
60.61
2,260
3.79
141
15,541
60.61
3.79
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
16
70
N/A
15.4
3
4
10
6
2
8
10
12
38,644
Reported:
STATION 6
Uncali
Trips
Short
Long
Fare
6
2
8
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
11.80
26.20
8.75
Fare
128
8
160
10
192
12
71
48
3
14
52
40
3
12
60.61
70
88
6
26
8.75 1,120
699
49
210
60.61
849
8.75
70
88
6
26
3.79
40
7,700
4,370
8.75 1,400
873
61
263
60.61
1,077
8.75
88
55
4
16
3.79
67
9,625
7,401
8.75 1,680
1,048
73
315
60.61
1,304
8.75
105
66
5
20
3.79
81
11,550
8,965
Annual Rev
28,875
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Average Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
16
70
8.75
3
4
10
6
2
8
10
12
20,735
36
Station 7 Tip
Calculated:
STATION 7
Tip Taxi Stand
Trips
Fare
Short
Long
5
2
7
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
Fare
210
7
13.00
65
45
3
14
44.20
88
70
5
21
153
115
8
35
4,602 3,450
242 1,038
153
115
8
35
16,874
21.91 4,602 3,450
242 1,038
21.91 153
115
8
35
16,874
21.91 4,602 3,450
242 1,038
21.91 153
115
8
35
16,874
21.91
21.91
210
7
210
7
Annual Rev
50,622
113.64
3,450
115
12,650
113.64
3,450
3.79
115
12,650
113.64
3,450
3.79
115
12,650
113.64
3.79
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
30
100
N/A
21.91
3
4.5
17.5
5
2
7
7
7
37,949
Reported:
STATION 7
Tip Taxi Stand
Trips
Short
Long
Fare
5
2
7
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
Fare
210
7
210
7
210
7
13.00
65
45
3
14
44.20
88
70
5
21
60.61
14.29
100
115
8
35
3,000
2,115
148
637
60.61
2,303
100
115
8
35
3.79
62
11,000
6,776
14.29 3,000
2,115
148
637
60.61
2,303
14.29
100
71
5
21
3.79
75
11,000
8,249
14.29 3,000
2,115
148
637
60.61
2,303
14.29
100
71
5
21
3.79
75
11,000
8,249
14.29
14.29
Annual Rev
33,000
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Average Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
30
100
14.29
3
4.5
17.5
5
2
7
7
7
23,274
37
Station 8 Havalimani (Airport)
Assumption: Average of international (more frequent taxi use) and domestic (less frequent) was 2.5
rides/day/car
Calculated:
STATION 8
Airport Taxi
Trips
Short
Long
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
26.20
39
30
2
9
122.20 122
100
7
30
931.82
162
130
9
39
Fare
64.60 39,729 31,980
2,239 9,626
64.60 162
130
9
39
17,765
64.60 79,458 63,960
4,477 19,252
64.60 323
520
36
157
35,530
64.60 119,187 95,940
6,716 28,878
64.60 485
780
55
235
53,295
1.5
1
2.5
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Fare
615
2.5
1230
5
1845
7.5
Annual Rev
106,590
29,171
119
13,044
931.82
59,274
3.79
163
17,896
931.82
89,377
3.79
246
27,053
931.82
3.79
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
246
10
N/A
64.6
3
10
50
1.50
1
2.5
5
7.5
57,993
Reported:
STATION 8
Airport
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
Fare
246
1
46.67
46.67
369
1.5
46.67
46.67
492
2
46.67
46.67
Annual Rev
11,480
47
5,133
17,220
70
7,700
22,960
93
10,267
23,100
9,116
37
638
3
2,744
11
931.82
3.79
13,674
56
957
4
4,116
17
931.82
3.79
18,231
74
1,276
5
5,488
22
931.82
3.79
7,804
32
3,490
12,172
49
5,443
16,541
67
7,396
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Average Fare
Total Seasons
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Trips/Car
330
246
100
46.67
3
1
1.5
2
16,329
38
Station 9 Kaleiçi
Calculated:
STATION 9
Kaleiçi
Winter
Short
Long
3
1
4
26.20
122.20
148.40
Short
Long
8
2
10
26.20
122.20
148.40
Trips
Summer
Fare
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
Fare
156
4
79
60
4
18
122
100
7
30
201
160
11
48
210
244
454
160
200
360
11
14
25
48
60
108
390
10
7,831
6,240
437
1,878
201
160
11
48
22,088
50.20 13,705
10,920
764
3,287
50.20
351
280
20
84
38,654
45.40 17,706
14,040
983
4,226
45.40
454
360
25
108
49,940
Annual Rev
110,682
147.73
147.73
50.20
50.20
273
7
5,805
149
16,374
147.73
10,270
3.79
263
28,967
147.73
13,332
3.79
342
37,604
147.73
3.79
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Winter Fare
Average Summer Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Car Short Trips
Peak Car Long Trips
Peak Trips/Car
330
39
50
150
50.2
45.4
3
10
50
3
1
4
7
8
2
10
82,944
Reported:
STATION 9
Kaleiçi Stand
Winter
Short
Long
Trips
Summer
Short
Long
Fare
12.50
50
34
2
10
8
2
10
15.00
150
107
7
32
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
3
1
4
147.73
147.73
Fare
156
4
273
7
390
10
1,950
1,339
94
403
147.73
1,399
50
34
2
10
3.79
36
5,500
3,947
12.50 3,413
2,343
164
705
147.73
2,559
12.50
100
60
4
18
3.79
78
11,000
8,594
15.00 5,850
4,160
291
1,252
147.73
4,450
15.00
150
107
7
32
3.79
114
16,500
12,552
12.50
12.50
Annual Rev
33,000
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Winter Fare
Average Summer Fare
Total Seasons
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Car Long Trips
Peak Trips/Car
330
39
50
150
12.5
15
3
3
1
4
7
8
2
10
25,092
39
Station 10 Kaleiçi
Calculated:
STATION 10
Park Taxi
Winter
Short
Long
2
1
3
4.60
38.20
42.80
Short
Long
3
2
5
4.60
38.20
42.80
Trips
Summer
Fare
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
Fare
51
3
9
4
0
1
38
30
2
9
47
34
2
10
14
76
90
6
60
66
0
4
5
2
18
20
85
5
806
578
40
174
47
34
2
10
5,214
15.80 1,074
771
54
232
15.80
63
45
3
14
6,952
18.04 1,533
1,122
79
338
18.04
90
66
5
20
9,922
Annual Rev
22,088
64.39
64.39
15.80
15.80
68
4
567
33
3,672
64.39
778
3.79
46
5,034
64.39
1,131
3.79
67
7,320
64.39
3.79
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Winter Fare
Average Summer Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Car Long Trips
Peak Trips/Car
330
17
25
50
15.8
18.04
3
1
15
2
1
3
4
3
2
5
16,026
Reported:
STATION 10
Park Taxi
Winter
Short
Long
Trips
Summer
Short
Long
Fare
8.33
25
15
1
5
3
2
5
10.00
50
33
2
10
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
2
1
3
64.39
64.39
Fare
51
3
68
4
85
5
425
261
18
78
64.39
282
25
15
1
5
3.79
17
2,750
1,826
8.33
567
348
24
105
64.39
398
8.33
33
20
1
6
3.79
23
3,667
2,573
10.00
850
553
39
166
64.39
619
10.00
50
33
2
10
3.79
36
5,500
4,007
8.33
8.33
Annual Rev
11,917
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Winter Fare
Average Summer Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Car Long Trips
Peak Trips/Car
330
17
25
50
8.33
10
3
1
15
2
1
3
4
3
2
5
8,406
40
Station 11 Park
Calculated:
STATION 11
Trafo Taxi
Assume 8 (5km short, 12km long, but "no long"
Winter
Short
Long
5
0
5
21.40
38.20
59.60
Short
Long
10
0
10
21.40
38.20
59.60
Trips
Summer
Fare
Trips
Stand Total
Car
Season per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Season per Car
Peak Season Car
Season per Car
Fare
Off Peak
Off Peak
65
5
107
80
6
24
0
0
0
0
107
80
6
24
214
0
214
160
0
160
11
0
11
48
0
48
130
10
1,391
1,040
73
313
107
80
6
24
11,770
21.40
1,947
1,456
102
438
21.40
150
112
8
34
16,478
21.40
2,782
2,080
146
626
21.40
214
160
11
48
23,540
Annual Rev
51,788
49.24
49.24
21.40
21.40
91
7
1,029
79
8,705
49.24
1,460
3.79
112
12,353
49.24
2,107
3.79
162
17,826
49.24
3.79
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Winter Fare
Average Summer Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Car Long Trips
Peak Trips/Car
330
13
40
40
21.4
21.4
3
8
15
5
0
5
7
10
0
10
38,883
Reported:
STATION 11
Trafo Taxi
Winter
Short
Long
** With summer's more trips and same revenues, less fuel used (shorter d
Trips
Summer
Short
Long
Fare
8.00
40
24
2
7
10
0
10
4.00
40
15
1
5
Trips
Off Peak
Off Peak
Stand Total
Car
Period per Car
Shoulder Season Car
Period per Car
Peak Season Car
Period per Car
5
0
5
49.24
49.24
Fare
65
5
91
7
130
10
520
314
22
95
49.24
376
40
24
2
7
3.79
29
4,400
3,183
8.00
728
440
31
132
49.24
546
8.00
56
34
2
10
3.79
42
6,160
4,623
4.00
520
195
14
59
49.24
412
4.00
40
15
1
5
3.79
32
4,400
3,487
8.00
8.00
Annual Rev
14,960
Days Worked
Cars @ Stand
Claimed OffPeak Rev
Claimed Peak Rev
Average Winter Fare
Average Summer Fare
Total Seasons
Avg Short Ride Km
Avg Long Ride Km
OffPeak Trips/Car
Shoulder Trips/Car
Peak Car Long Trips
Peak Trips/Car
330
13
40
40
8
4
3
8
15
5
0
5
7
10
0
10
11,293
41
Appendix 4: City Benchmarking
42
Benchmarking:
Analysis of Other Large Taxi Systems
New York City (USA)
Jamaica
Chicago (USA)
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Comparative City Chart
Antalya
New York
Jamaica*
Chicago
Rio de Janeiro
964,886
8,244,910
2,709,300
2,707,120
6,323,037
Number of Taxis
3,726
13,250
5,000
7,000
32,000
Population/Taxi
259
622
Private and
Corporate
542
Private and
Corporate
387
Private and
Corporate
Varies by zone
$1,125,000
$27,650
$322,835
198
Private and
Corporate
Transfer is not
permited
Hail





Phone call





Call Button

Population
Owners
Plate value
(USD)
Getting a taxi
Private only

Phone App
Stands






* Jamaica as a country
24
New York City (1/3)
Taxi Numbers
•
•
67 taxi medallion (right to drive) owners, both
corporate and private
~51,000 drivers (many drivers rotate taxis)
Competition
•
Taxis compete with 41,000+ other “for-hire
vehicles” such as limousines, “black cabs,” and
community cars (similar to minibus)
Taken from: www.nyctourist.com
Licensing and training
•
In order to be licensed, must attend taxi school to
learn:
–
–
–
–
•
•
Local taxi laws and
Driver/Passenger Interpersonal Relations
Map Reading
Geography
All drivers complete a defensive driving course
All drivers complete written, oral, and drug tests
Taken from: www.thetruthaboutcars.com
25
New York City (2/3)
Methods of passengers getting a taxi
•
Majority of passengers obtain a taxi by
“hailing” from the side of any street in NYC
–
–
•
Other methods of obtaining a cab include :
–
–
–
•
•
All taxis have a light on top of the car
Light on means “available” and light off means
“in use” or “off duty”
Calling a cab company call center
Waiting in line at major taxi area
Newly developed mobile phone applications
to “e-hail” taxis
Taxi waiting lines at major transportation
hubs (airports, bus station, train station)
and other popular areas
All medallion taxis can pick people up
wherever within 5 boroughs of city (no
territories/zones)
Taken from blogs.lawyers.com
Taken from www.nydailynews.com
26
New York City (3/3)
Passenger Experience
• All taxis are required to have a credit card
machine
• Most taxis now have pre-programmed
television with news and entertainment
playing during the ride for passengers
• Passengers have a “Bill of Rights” including
the right to:
–
–
–
Taken from: boston.com
Direct the driver the route they would like to
take to the destination
A quiet, clean, safe, and odor-free ride with the
driver off of his/her cell phone
Working seatbelts for everyone
• 2012: 18,000 complaints for approximately
241 million rides, or 1 complaint every
13,400 rides
Taken from: yellowcabnyc.com
27
Jamaica (1/2)
Two Types of Taxis – Charter & Route
Goes to...
Stops en-route ...
Private?
Maximum Number of Passengers
Negotiate the fare for the ride?
The fare is...
Charter Taxi
Wherever you specify.
Only if you ask the driver to stop.
Yes.
4
Yes, negotiated before taxi ride.
Per Taxi
Route Taxi (similar to minibus)
Places listed on the taxi route.
Frequent - pick up/drop off people.
No, taxi is shared with others.
10
No, the fare is set by law.
Per Person
Taken from: www.rockystaxiandtourservice.com
28
Jamaica (2/2)
About the system
• All Taxis
•
•
•
Must be member of Jamaica Union of Travellers Association
(JUTA)
Identified by red license plate with white letters
Drivers must pass physical fitness test
• Route Taxis
•
Most passengers hail a route taxi on the street
–
•
•
Taken from: www.tripadvisor.com
Route stop or hail a moving route taxi by saying “One Stop Driver!”
Drive along predetermined routes
Generally cheaper than Charter Taxis
• Charter Taxis
•
•
•
Set up by calls, hotels or popular tourist spots
Most taxis do not have meters
No standard car color or uniform
Taken from: www. thecovejamaica.com
29
Chicago (1/2)
About the system
• Varying company sizes (single owner/operator
to companies with hundreds of vehicles)
• Drivers are rarely employees: lease vehicle
daily – Average annual income is $34,000
• Some companies subscribe to centralized
dispatch service, most have own phone
number or online reservation system
– Smartphone app with taxi locator
• Strict list of pre-approved vehicles
• No vehicles with over 100,000 miles or older
than 5 years can become first-time taxicabs
Taken from: www.google.com
30
Chicago (2/2)
Method of passengers getting a taxi
• No organized taxi stands within city
•
•
•
In city center mostly manual flagging on street
“Taxi line” at airports
Large buildings (hotels, apartments, offices) have a
taxi light to signal that there is a waiting passenger
• When a customer calls, taxis can be assigned
through three methods:
•
•
•
A central dispatcher will assign a taxi using GPS
locations
All taxis get a message on their meters and the first
to ‘accept’ the fare picks up the passenger
The central dispatcher sends a walkie talkie
message to all drivers and one verbally commits to
taking the passenger
31
Rio de Janeiro (1/2)
Two types of taxi permit:
• Obtained before 1998 can be transferred to other
taxi driver, after the death of the permit owner.
• Obtained after 2000 are not transferable under any
condition.
• To dramatically reduce the fleet the Municipality is
not issuing new licenses
Types of taxis:
• Individual drivers (taxi owners);
• Individual drivers affiliated to cooperatives;
• Special services charging higher fares (with
taximeter);
• Special services with no taximeter (fares even
higher and pre-determined according to the link).
32
Rio de Janeiro (2/2)
“Greenest Fleet in Brazil”
•
To incentive CNG adaptation, the annual tax over
vehicle property (IPVA) can be reduced up to 75%.
2011 ranking system:
•
•
The better the ranking the more privileges the
taxi/driver will get.
Privileges such as:
•
•
•
•
Stop at any taxi stand in the city
Priority when being assigned a taxi stand
Will be able to stop at ‘touristic stands’ if certified in a
foreign language
The authorization and ranking system will be
based on:
•
•
•
•
Taken from: www.noticias.r7.com
Drivers’ licenses and vehicle maintenance conditions
Defense-driving
Foreign language certificates
Adapted vehicle to carry special needs passengers
33

MAP 255 - City of Antalya - Erb Institute

Transcription

Similar documents

Vehicle Zone Click here to view the Vehicle Zone floor plan

taxi advertising

taxi top led display - Profesionalna led rasvjeta

Kyoto Station to Kiyomizu Machiya

1- PREDETERMINED TAXI FARES IN NAPLES

GETTING TO HOTEL WEST-END

Kyoto Station to Kiyomizu Machiya

Parisian Taxis