The London assembly’s transport committee has made the case persuasively in a new report
Those who question the effectiveness of the London Assembly, the elected scrutiny arm of the Greater London Authority, might think again if they read this week’s report on “robotaxis” from its transport committee.
This detailed and extensively-evidenced look at what autonomous vehicle (AV) technology might mean for the capital and how it should be regulated could prove to be a decisive intervention as the government and Transport for London weigh up their options in the face of a determined push by big tech-backed operators to get their driverless taxis on the city streets.
Keir Starmer’s government was notably enthusiastic about robotaxis. They should already have been operating in London under an “accelerated” approval timetable agreed in 2025, but Andy Burnham’s team seems to have been uneasy about the pace of the rollout. None of the three prospective London operators – Wayve, teamed up with Uber, Alphabet-owned Waymo and the Lyft-owned Freenow platform, partnered with China’s Baidu – have yet submitted formal applications to the government’s regulator, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA).
That provides an important breathing space in which to address the committee’s key conclusion – that it “has not currently heard sufficient evidence to persuade it that London should welcome autonomous passenger services”.
Safety is a key concern. It was not clear to the committee that claims based on the US experience would necessarily translate onto London’s complex road network. Other concerns are stacking up, too. Would a robotaxi free-for-all further clog up the city’s already congested streets and potentially put thousands of private hire drivers out of work? Will the fleet be fully accessible to disabled Londoners and how effectively will the service manage data protection, interaction with emergency services and safeguarding issues?
The report also raises some fundamental questions about travelling around the city’s roads. “Rather than just accepting the autonomous passenger service model proposed by operators, London should be looking at the transport problems it is trying to solve and then considering what solutions this technology could provide,” it says.
The report makes well thought out recommendations to TfL for how this disruptive technology might be regulated: strict safety standards, beefed up liaison arrangements between the operators, police and emergency services, comprehensive data-sharing and compulsory monitoring of “empty miles” driven. TfL should be getting research underway as well on a longer-term vision for wider use of AV tech to benefit the city, it says.
Essentially it’s about ensuring that any new AV service supports rather than undermines City Hall’s safety, sustainability and “active travel”-oriented transport strategy. Critically, it’s an approach which seems to have the support of Londoners. A YouGov survey conducted for the committee found 42 per cent opposed to the introduction of robotaxis compared to 29 per cent in favour, with safety and possible technical failure the main concerns.
There’s a significant stumbling block, though. Under the current rules it’s the government that will grant robotaxi operating permits, monitor performance and take any enforcement action required. TfL’s role is restricted to giving one-off consent.
That consent can be negotiated, it seems. TfL is drafting guidance for applicants, perhaps around numbers, areas of operation and so on, which will be informed by the committee’s recommendations. The operators are responding too: Waymo’s new “Vision for London” document asserts that the company is “ready to work with London to earn its consent”.
But how enforceable any conditions will be remains unclear. As TfL strategy director Christine Calderato told the committee: “We do not have a formal role where we could put conditions on a permit because we are not issuing the permit…we have no further ongoing role once vehicles are out on the street”. Hence the pointed headline on the assembly press release announcing the publication of the transport committee report: “DfT v TfL – who’s behind the wheel on Robocabs?” Currently, it’s not TfL.
We are, however, presently in what Whitehall envisaged would be a “pilot” phase ahead of the full implementation of the law governing AV deployment – the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which is scheduled for the second half of next year. At that point, the committee report says, in an argument that should appeal to Burnham the devolutionist, full regulatory powers should be handed over to TfL. If Heathrow expansion is “principally a matter for London and Londoners”, as the PM said last month, shouldn’t that also be true for the city’s taxi services?
With effectively less than a year before full implementation, why not press the pause button right away? That would leave time to firm up regulation, address current driver demands for protection and put London’s transport authority back in full charge of its streets.
Autonomous vehicle technology is not going away, but there’s now perhaps a one-off opportunity for the city to take the wheel. Otherwise, as Labour transport committee member Elly Baker told the operators at meeting earlier this year, “you’re basically asking us to take a big gamble and see where it goes”.
Follow Charles Wright on Bluesky and read more from him on his Substack. Image from London Assembly transport committee report.
OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To receive it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack. Thanks.
