In message , at 18:40:27
on Wed, 18 Jun 2014, remarked:
South Cambs is a collection of what we call "necklace villages" and
their stations. I'm quite prepared to believe none [village High Streets
or stations] are big enough to warrant a taxi.

Arguably Whittlesford station would most likely merit a taxi rank. There
might be one of the station forecourt of course. That would be non-statutory.

NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".
--
Roland Perry

On 2014\06\19 07:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:40:27
on Wed, 18 Jun 2014, remarked:
South Cambs is a collection of what we call "necklace villages" and
their stations. I'm quite prepared to believe none [village High
Streets
or stations] are big enough to warrant a taxi.

Arguably Whittlesford station would most likely merit a taxi rank. There
might be one of the station forecourt of course. That would be
non-statutory.

NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...e2ddce18?hl=en

In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\06\19 07:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:40:27
on Wed, 18 Jun 2014, remarked:
South Cambs is a collection of what we call "necklace villages" and
their stations. I'm quite prepared to believe none [village High
Streets
or stations] are big enough to warrant a taxi.

Arguably Whittlesford station would most likely merit a taxi rank. There
might be one of the station forecourt of course. That would be
non-statutory.

NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...e2ddce18?hl=en

Quite. And we don't know if the driver was using that as a private
car at the time. I could just about believe that, if a taxi driver
were in the vicinity during rush hour, he might drop by to see if
anyone wanted one, but Whittlesford is near-deserted at other times.
Almost all regular users are commuters, who almost never use taxis
(in the sense of looking out for one plying for hire).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 2014\06\19 11:48, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...e2ddce18?hl=en

Quite. And we don't know if the driver was using that as a private
car at the time. I could just about believe that, if a taxi driver
were in the vicinity during rush hour, he might drop by to see if
anyone wanted one, but Whittlesford is near-deserted at other times.
Almost all regular users are commuters, who almost never use taxis
(in the sense of looking out for one plying for hire).

Although if there were no taxis licensed for South Cambs when the
picture was taken, he must have been licensed for a different area and
shouldn't have been plying for hire there, if he was plying for hire.

In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\06\19 11:48, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...e2ddce18?hl=en

Quite. And we don't know if the driver was using that as a private
car at the time. I could just about believe that, if a taxi driver
were in the vicinity during rush hour, he might drop by to see if
anyone wanted one, but Whittlesford is near-deserted at other times.
Almost all regular users are commuters, who almost never use taxis
(in the sense of looking out for one plying for hire).

Although if there were no taxis licensed for South Cambs when the
picture was taken, he must have been licensed for a different area and
shouldn't have been plying for hire there, if he was plying for hire.

One can't tell. A very large number of people in South Cambridgeshire
use Cambridge taxis as private hire cars, and Roland says that there
are a few taxis licensed by South Cambridgeshire.

Whatever. There is essentially no plying for hire in South
Cambridgeshire, and won't be any in the forseeable future, despite
what some non-residents may think. The solution to the northern
station remains a simple agreement by which the two councils
agree that a taxi licensed by either are licensed by the other
for that location. No boundary changes needed, and well within
the scope of "acting reasonably and fairly".


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 2014\06\19 12:21, Nick Maclaren wrote:

Whatever. There is essentially no plying for hire in South
Cambridgeshire, and won't be any in the forseeable future, despite
what some non-residents may think. The solution to the northern
station remains a simple agreement by which the two councils
agree that a taxi licensed by either are licensed by the other
for that location. No boundary changes needed, and well within
the scope of "acting reasonably and fairly".

I believe this would also require that taxis in both areas have meters
which run at the same rate, which would require the two councils to bind
their rates together indefinitely, and hold joint meetings to set the rate.

In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\06\19 12:21, Nick Maclaren wrote:

Whatever. There is essentially no plying for hire in South
Cambridgeshire, and won't be any in the forseeable future, despite
what some non-residents may think. The solution to the northern
station remains a simple agreement by which the two councils
agree that a taxi licensed by either are licensed by the other
for that location. No boundary changes needed, and well within
the scope of "acting reasonably and fairly".

I believe this would also require that taxis in both areas have meters
which run at the same rate, which would require the two councils to bind
their rates together indefinitely, and hold joint meetings to set the rate.

I agree that would be an obstacle if it were true, but I rather
doubt that it is. It wouldn't be insoluble even if it were true,
as the solution would remain a simple (but binding) arrangement
between the two councils.

Of course, that's unthinkable ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , at 12:30:14 on
Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked:
Whatever. There is essentially no plying for hire in South
Cambridgeshire, and won't be any in the forseeable future, despite
what some non-residents may think. The solution to the northern
station remains a simple agreement by which the two councils
agree that a taxi licensed by either are licensed by the other
for that location. No boundary changes needed, and well within
the scope of "acting reasonably and fairly".

I believe this would also require that taxis in both areas have meters
which run at the same rate, which would require the two councils to
bind their rates together indefinitely, and hold joint meetings to set
the rate.

To avoid that, would it be OK if the Cambridge Hackneys didn't start
their meters until 200yds from the station and safely within the City?

In any event, 99.9% of customers would expect to be paying City rates
for a cab from that station, given its particular access arrangements.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

On 2014\06\19 11:48, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:



https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...6603,3a,75y,26
9.25h,65.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPztYSZKWVcGa4LdVEtCQDQ!2e0!4m2 !3m1!1s0x47d87
b7c5681cfff:0xe4a7bc96e2ddce18?hl=en

Quite. And we don't know if the driver was using that as a private
car at the time. I could just about believe that, if a taxi driver
were in the vicinity during rush hour, he might drop by to see if
anyone wanted one, but Whittlesford is near-deserted at other times.
Almost all regular users are commuters, who almost never use taxis
(in the sense of looking out for one plying for hire).

Although if there were no taxis licensed for South Cambs when the
picture was taken, he must have been licensed for a different area
and shouldn't have been plying for hire there, if he was plying for hire.

South Cambs DC has had a small number of hackney carriages licensed for
quite some time. That looks like one of theirs to me. It's certainly not a
city one.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 11:27:27 on
Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked:
NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...Q!2e0!4m2 !3m
1!1s0x47d87b7c5681cfff:0xe4a7bc96e2ddce18?hl=en

Is that a taxi-rank? Looks more like general car parking.
--
Roland Perry