The Transport Committee of the Greater London Authority Council met on Tuesday 9 June 2026 to discuss autonomous passenger vehicles (AVs) in London. The committee heard from experts on the potential impacts of AVs on safety, congestion, accessibility, employment, and the economy. Key discussions revolved around the need for robust regulation, the potential for AVs to support public transport, and the economic opportunities and risks associated with their widespread adoption.

Autonomous Passenger Vehicles in London

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion about the introduction of autonomous passenger vehicles (AVs) in London, exploring their potential benefits and challenges.

Safety: Professor Jack Stilgoe, Professor of Science and Technology Policy at University College London, emphasised that the safety implications of AVs depend heavily on the regulatory framework and the circumstances of their introduction. Thomas Ableman, host of the Freewheeling podcast and former Director of Strategy and Innovation at Transport for London (TfL), suggested that while AV developers are cautious, safety concerns can distract from the more crucial question of whether AVs are useful and align with societal goals for transport. Dr. Nick Reed, founder of Reed Mobility and a member of the Department for Transport's Science Advisory Council, presented evidence from Waymo's US deployments suggesting an 80-90% reduction in serious crashes compared to human drivers, though he cautioned that London's road conditions and safety standards differ. Professor Glenn Lyons, Mott McDonald Professor of Future Mobility at UWE Bristol, raised concerns about indirect safety implications and the potential anxiety for vulnerable road users. The discussion also touched upon edge cases – unusual situations like roadworks or emergency vehicles – and the role of tele-operators, with concerns raised about transparency and the potential for companies to mark their own homework. The need for independent evaluation and data sharing, similar to the aviation industry's approach to accident investigation, was highlighted.

Public Transport and Congestion: Thomas Ableman expressed concern that a robo-taxi model could increase congestion by adding more zero-occupancy vehicles to the road, potentially undermining TfL's goal of reducing single-occupancy vehicles and impacting bus services. He contrasted this with the Oslo model, which uses small autonomous shuttles to connect low-density suburbs to public transport hubs. Dr. Nick Reed noted that autonomous vehicles could play a role in public transport, citing experiments in Oslo and Paris, but stressed that costs would need to fall significantly. He suggested that smaller, cheaper vehicles could be particularly beneficial for connecting areas currently underserved by public transport. Assembly Member Keith Prince suggested that AVs could be used to connect outer London areas, such as Havering and Redbridge, which are currently underserved by public transport.

Accessibility and Safeguarding: The committee explored the potential benefits of AVs for young people and disabled individuals. Thomas Ableman suggested that if costs fall, AVs could significantly improve mobility for those who cannot drive, provided they are integrated into a wider public transport network. However, concerns were raised about the lack of physical assistance for passengers entering or leaving vehicles, and the potential for AVs to exacerbate existing issues with black cabs if not properly regulated. The discussion also touched upon the potential for AVs to offer tailored experiences for neurodivergent passengers and the importance of ensuring accessibility standards are set for AVs, including wheelchair-accessible vehicles. The issue of passenger safeguarding was also raised, with questions about how AVs would handle emergencies and health crises within the vehicle, and the potential for increased privacy concerns due to constant monitoring. The lack of data on assaults on passengers within AVs was noted.

Data Management and Cyber Security: The data-rich nature of AVs was a significant point of discussion. Professor Jack Stilgoe highlighted that AVs are essentially CCTVs on wheels and that police are interested in this data as evidence. The need for a standardised mechanism for companies to share data, particularly on near misses and edge cases, was stressed to improve safety across the entire transport network. Concerns were raised about the black box nature of some AI systems, making it difficult to understand why certain decisions are made. The potential for cyber-attacks on AVs was also discussed, with a call for proactive measures to minimise London's vulnerability. The issue of data exhaust – data collected beyond what is necessary for the vehicle's operation – was also raised, with questions about who has access to this data and its potential use for facial recognition.

Economic Impact and Employment: The potential economic benefits of AVs were discussed, with figures of £42 billion and £66 billion cited, though these were largely dismissed as speculative and lacking clear methodology. Thomas Ableman argued that the current robo-taxi model, being similar in price to Uber, would have no significant economic impact beyond existing ride-hailing services. He suggested that the real economic benefit would come from improved connectivity, particularly in outer London, if AVs could enable people to access opportunities currently out of reach. Concerns were raised about the potential displacement of jobs in the taxi and private hire sectors, with estimates suggesting a significant reduction in private hire roles. However, some experts suggested a shift in job roles, such as remote controllers, rather than a complete loss of employment. The committee considered whether limiting or phasing the introduction of AVs could be a necessary measure to manage the economic impacts on jobs.

Bus Services and Congestion: The committee discussed the impact of AVs on bus services and congestion. Thomas Ableman reiterated his concern that robo-taxis could worsen congestion, while Dr. Nick Reed highlighted the potential for AVs to improve public transport in areas with low demand. The discussion also touched upon the Mayor's Transport Strategy's goal of reducing traffic and increasing active travel and public transport use, and how AVs might fit into or hinder these ambitions.

Taxi and Private Hire Sector: The committee heard that black cab numbers have continued to decline, with concerns raised about the lack of progress on financial support for drivers to purchase new electric taxis. The issue of cross-border hiring, where vehicles licensed elsewhere operate in London, was highlighted as undermining licensing standards and impacting driver income. TfL's licensing process for new and renewing drivers was also discussed, with efforts to improve efficiency noted. The potential impact of AVs on the livelihoods of private hire drivers was a significant concern, with questions raised about whether TfL should implement measures such as retraining funds or limiting AV numbers to manage job displacement.

Capital Projects: Updates were provided on the DLR extension to Thamesmead, with progress being made on securing funding and engaging with the supply chain. The Bakerloo line extension and the West London Orbital project were also discussed, with ongoing efforts to secure government funding and demonstrate their economic benefits. The committee also received an update on the Piccadilly line train replacement programme, with a revised timeline indicating potential delays.

Bus Driver Welfare: The committee discussed ongoing issues related to bus driver welfare, including access to toilets, cab temperatures, and fatigue management. While TfL has invested in improving facilities and is working with operators and unions, concerns remain about the pace of change and the need for a cultural shift to prioritise driver wellbeing. The effectiveness of current measures and the potential for a Bus Drivers' Bill of Rights were debated.

Road Safety and Vision Zero: The committee reviewed the progress of the Mayor's Vision Zero Action Plan 2, which aims to eliminate road deaths and serious injuries by 2041. While overall road safety figures have improved, progress on bus safety has been identified as an area needing more attention. The plan includes measures such as reducing speed limits, upgrading camera safety networks, and tackling risks posed by HGVs. The importance of supporting bereaved families and injured survivors of road traffic collisions was also emphasised, with concerns raised about the recent closure of RoadPeace and the need for continued provision of mutual support services.

Car Clubs: The committee discussed the role of car clubs in reducing private car ownership and traffic congestion. While TfL supports car clubs as an alternative to private car ownership, concerns were raised about the lack of a comprehensive pan-London action plan and the reliance on commercial operators. TfL is working with boroughs to improve operating conditions for car clubs, including better collaboration, consistent procurement processes, and encouraging the use of electric fleets. The strategic interaction between car clubs, private hire vehicles, and autonomous vehicles was also noted as an area requiring coordinated planning.

Bus Services: The committee discussed the Superloop bus network, with questions about further routes and the rationale behind its design, particularly in outer London. Concerns were raised about changes to existing bus routes potentially reducing direct access and increasing reliance on interchanges, especially for vulnerable passengers. TfL stated that consultations are ongoing and decisions will be made based on feedback and affordability, while acknowledging the need to balance network efficiency with passenger needs. The potential for cross-border hiring to affect AVs was also raised, with a call for similar legislative changes as those proposed for taxis and PHVs.

Final Decisions: The committee noted the report and discussion on autonomous passenger vehicles and delegated authority to the Chair, in consultation with party group lead members, to agree any output arising from the meeting. The committee also noted its work programme and meeting dates, with the next meeting scheduled for 24 June 2026.