MAP 255 - City of Antalya

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.

The success of the implementation can be measured in the following ways:   

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.

The success of the implementation can be measured in the following ways:   

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total 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

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 10 cars daily maitenance 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total 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

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 16 cars daily maitenance 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total 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

Profit before Commission 445 44 4,892 37.88 606 3.79 61 6,662 37.88 766 3.79 77 8,431 37.88 3.79

Annual Operating Profit

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Season per Car

10.60 23.80 34.40 Fare

480 24

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 20 cars daily maint 170 112 8 34 190 144 10 43 360 256 18 77

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 20 cars daily maint 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

Profit before Commission 75.76

Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Period per Car

10.60 23.80 7.50 Fare

120 6 160 8 200 10

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 20 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 42 28 2 8 48 36 3 11 75.76 45 64 4 19

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 20 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

Days Worked Cars @ Stand Claimed OffPeak 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 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Season per Car

11.80 26.20 38.00 Fare

128 8

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 20 cars daily maint 71 48 3 14 52 40 3 12 123 88 6 26

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 20 cars daily maint 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

Profit before Commission 60.61

Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Period per Car

11.80 26.20 8.75 Fare

128 8 160 10 192 12

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 16 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 71 48 3 14 52 40 3 12 60.61 70 88 6 26

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 16 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

Days Worked Cars @ Stand Claimed OffPeak 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 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Season per Car

Fare 210 7

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 20 cars daily maint 13.00 65 45 3 14 44.20 88 70 5 21 153 115 8 35 Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 20 cars daily maint 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

Profit before Commission 113.64

Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Period per Car

Fare 210 7 210 7 210 7

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 30 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 13.00 65 45 3 14 44.20 88 70 5 21 60.61 14.29 100 115 8 35 Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 30 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

Days Worked Cars @ Stand Claimed OffPeak 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 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Season per Car

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 246 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 26.20 39 30 2 9 122.20 122 100 7 30 931.82 162 130 9 39

Fare

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 20 cars daily maint 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

Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

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

330 246 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Period per Car

Fare

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 246 cars daily maint

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

Annual Operating Profit

Profit before Commission 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 Kaleiรงi Calculated: STATION 9

Kaleiรงi

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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Season per Car

Fare 156 4

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 39 cars daily maint 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

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 39 cars daily maint 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

Profit before Commission

Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Car Short Trips OffPeak Car Long Trips 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

Kaleiรงi 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Period per Car

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 39 cars daily maint

3 1 4

147.73

147.73

Fare 156 4 273 7 390 10

Profit before Commission

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 39 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

Days Worked Cars @ Stand Claimed OffPeak Rev Claimed Peak Rev Average Winter Fare Average Summer Fare Total Seasons OffPeak Car Short Trips OffPeak Car Long Trips OffPeak Trips/Car Shoulder Trips/Car Peak Car Short Trips 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 Kaleiรงi 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Season per Car

Fare 51 3

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 17 cars daily maint 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

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 17 cars daily maint 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

Profit before Commission

Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Car Short Trips OffPeak Car Long Trips OffPeak Trips/Car Shoulder Trips/Car Peak Car Short Trips 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Period per Car

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 17 cars daily maint

2 1 3

64.39

64.39

Fare 51 3 68 4 85 5

Profit before Commission

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 17 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Car Short Trips OffPeak Car Long Trips OffPeak Trips/Car Shoulder Trips/Car Peak Car Short Trips 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Season per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Season per Car

Fare

Off Peak Off Peak

65 5

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 13 cars daily maint 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

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 13 cars daily maint 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

Profit before Commission

Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Car Short Trips OffPeak Car Long Trips OffPeak Trips/Car Shoulder Trips/Car Peak Car Short Trips 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 Stand Total Shoulder Season Car Period per Car Peak Season Stand Total Peak Season Car Period per Car

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 13 cars daily maint

5 0 5

49.24

49.24

Fare 65 5 91 7 130 10

Profit before Commission

Revenue RT Distance Litres of Fuel Cost of Fuel 13 cars daily maint Profit before Commission 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

Annual Operating Profit

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 Car Short Trips OffPeak Car Long Trips OffPeak Trips/Car Shoulder Trips/Car Peak Car Short Trips 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

Taken from: www.google.com

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).

Taken from: www.google.com

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