Overview
Key figures for the proposed pilot.
These figures frame the policy problem and the pilot design. They are not claimed as post-intervention outcomes.
Indicative road-space / passenger-share comparison
Assessment 1 used TfL evidence to show the efficiency gap between buses and cars/taxis/PHVs [4].
PHV activity in central London
PHVs account for around 28% of central London weekday vehicle-km [5].
This visual is an illustrative summary of the cited share, not a measured pilot result.
Problem & People
Westminster bus corridors are slow, busy, and politically sensitive.
This section combines the problem statement, aims, objectives and stakeholders: what the issue is, who is affected, and what success would look like.
London congestion places pressure on the road network and makes the Central Activities Zone 95% sustainable mode-share target harder to achieve [8]. Buses are space-efficient but are slowed by congestion. Major bus routes in the City of Westminster have very low average speeds, around 6.96 mph [2], and one third of Londoners avoid buses due to slow journey times [1].
PHVs account for around 28% of central London weekday vehicle-km [5]. The problem is not all PHV use. The specific problem is avoidable PHV interference with bus corridors, especially empty running, standby circulation, and kerbside stopping. Essential PHV use must be protected, including disabled access, health-related trips, luggage, late-night travel, and other genuine door-to-door needs.
Slower buses make buses less attractive, contributing to a cycle of lower bus use, inefficient road-space use, and further congestion [3]. The proposed success test is therefore balanced: faster and more reliable buses without unacceptable impacts on accessibility, driver livelihoods, or nearby streets.
Aims
Success means better bus reliability without unfair access costs.
Aim: To improve bus reliability in the City of Westminster by reducing avoidable PHV-generated interference on bus corridors, supporting mode shift toward sustainable transport and progress toward the CAZ 95% mode-share target.
| Objective | What success means | How it is measured | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improve bus speed and reliability. | Faster buses and lower journey-time variability. | Bus speed, scheduled headway adherence, journey-time variability. | Reliable buses make sustainable travel more attractive. |
| Reduce empty PHV running in bus corridors. | Less avoidable PHV circulation where buses are most delayed. | Operator-reported empty PHV miles or minutes in the geofence. | Targets the activity most likely to be avoidable. |
| Reduce non-essential PHV kerbside stopping in bus corridors. | Fewer disruptive stops, door-opening conflicts, and bus lane interruptions. | Camera, ANPR, street-level enforcement, and operator stopping data. | Kerbside friction can create local delay even when traffic is moving. |
| Protect essential door-to-door accessibility. | Disabled and health-related trips continue to receive door-to-door access. | Exemption usage, satisfaction monitoring, complaints, and Equality Impact Assessment evidence. | The intervention must not exclude essential users. |
| Protect driver livelihoods. | Driver revenue stays above an agreed review floor. | Revenue per active hour, driver feedback, and operator reporting. | The proposal should target empty mileage rather than paid trips. |
| Monitor displacement to nearby streets. | No material transfer of congestion or stopping conflicts to side streets. | Nearby-street PHV volumes, stop observations, and hotspot mapping. | Corridor gains should not simply move the problem elsewhere. |
Stakeholders
People affected by the corridor rules.
Role: transport authority, bus network manager, licensing/enforcement/data lead.
Needs: bus reliability, sustainable mode share, value for money.
Role: local highway authority and kerbside/waiting-restriction actor.
Needs: traffic management, local economy, political feasibility.
Risk: political resistance to further restrictions.
Mitigation: frame as targeted bus reliability improvement rather than a blanket anti-PHV policy.
Role: app geofencing, routing, driver/passenger communication, data reporting.
Needs: clear rules, lead time, standardised reporting.
Risk: compliance burden and cross-border operator issues.
Mitigation: phased reporting duty and TfL-standardised reporting interface.
Role: affected workforce.
Needs: income stability, fair enforcement, clear rules.
Risk: earnings reduction and equity concern.
Mitigation: target empty mileage rather than paid trips; protect through-trips; monitor revenue per active hour; engage driver representatives early.
Role: some discretionary PHV users may be marginal bus users.
Needs: fast, reliable, safe, convenient travel.
Risk: reduced doorstep convenience.
Mitigation: nearby designated pickup/drop-off points and improved bus reliability.
Role: essential door-to-door users.
Needs: protected access and privacy.
Risk: exclusion if rules are too rigid.
Mitigation: exemptions, opt-in verification, satisfaction monitoring, and Equality Impact Assessment.
Solution
A targeted geofence, empty-mileage fee, and no-stopping rule.
The intervention is designed as a narrow Westminster bus-corridor pilot, not a blanket restriction on PHVs.
Geofenced corridor
- Selected Westminster bus corridors.
- Monday to Friday, 7am-6pm.
- Initial pilot around Piccadilly Circus / Regent Street South / Haymarket.
- PHV operators use app geofencing to detect corridor entry and apply corridor-specific rules.
Empty-mileage fee
- Operators are charged when a PHV is inside the corridor, has no passenger, and is not en-route to a passenger.
- The fee targets avoidable empty circulation rather than paid passenger demand.
- Revenue should be reinvested into bus improvements.
No-stopping rule
- Non-exempt PHVs cannot pick up or drop off directly on the bus corridor.
- Passengers are redirected to nearby designated pickup/drop-off points.
- The aim is to reduce kerbside conflict, illegal stopping, door-opening conflict, and bus delay.
Exemptions
Blue Badge and Freedom Pass holders are exempt. Health-related and accessibility-essential trips are protected. The proposal uses opt-in eligibility flags so unnecessary personal data is not shared.
Decision logic
What happens when a PHV enters the corridor.
PHV enters geofenced bus corridor
Has passenger?
Pass through
En-route or exempt?
No empty-mileage fee
Empty-mileage fee + no stopping
Passenger access rule
Passenger exempt?
Door-to-door pick-up/drop-off allowed
Use nearby designated pick-up/drop-off point
- PHV enters geofenced bus corridor.
- Has passenger?
- Yes: pass through.
- No: check en-route or exempt.
- En-route or exempt?
- Yes: no empty-mileage fee.
- No: empty-mileage fee + no stopping.
- Passenger exempt?
- Yes: door-to-door pick-up/drop-off allowed.
- No: use nearby designated pick-up/drop-off point.
The rule targets avoidable empty circulation and non-essential stopping, while preserving access for exempt and essential trips.
Before vs After animation
What the corridor is trying to change.
A lightweight illustrative comparison of the target operating condition. It shows the proposed direction of travel, not measured pilot results.
Animated comparison of bus corridor operation before and after the proposed PHV restrictions.
Before
Disrupted corridorAfter
Clearer corridorBefore: a kerbside PHV forces the bus to change lane and follow slower PHV traffic. After: the kerb is clear, PHV presence is reduced, and the bus travels straight.
Target outcome: fewer disruptive PHV movements, less kerbside stopping, and smoother bus operation.
Animation source: Custom schematic SVG/CSS animation created by the project team with AI coding assistance using Codex/Claude, 10 June 2026. This is an illustrative animation, not a measured traffic simulation.
Pros, cons & trade-offs
The policy case depends on balancing reliability gains with fairness risks.
Pros
- Targets operator dispatch and avoidable empty running, not inelastic passenger demand.
- Prices empty circulation that the congestion charge does not directly target.
- Uses existing ANPR, camera enforcement and operator app data where possible.
- Reinvests revenue into bus improvements.
Cons and risks
- Driver livelihood and workforce equity concerns raise the burden of justification.
- Cross-border PHVs may complicate reporting and compliance.
- Multi-causal slowdown makes PHV-specific speed gains uncertain.
- Passenger convenience may reduce for non-exempt doorstep trips.
| Trade-off | Why it matters | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Bus reliability vs doorstep PHV convenience. | Passengers value door-to-door convenience, especially in busy central areas. | Use nearby designated pickup/drop-off points and preserve exemptions for essential trips. |
| Congestion reduction vs driver livelihood/fare impacts. | Restrictions can affect trip frequency, earnings, or passenger prices. | Target empty mileage rather than paid trips; protect through-trips; monitor revenue per active hour. |
| Bus corridor speed vs side-street displacement. | Kerbside activity could move to adjacent streets. | Track nearby-street PHV volume and stopping hotspots; adjust pickup-point locations. |
| Enforcement precision vs data privacy. | Effective targeting requires trip-status data, but personal information should be minimised. | Use opt-in eligibility flags and aggregate operator reporting wherever possible. |
| Targeting PHVs vs multi-causal congestion uncertainty. | Bus delay has several causes, so PHV-specific benefits may be uncertain. | Use a measured pilot with baseline comparison, multi-dimensional thresholds, and pause/redesign criteria. |
Implementation & Pilot
A six-month pilot with a clear road map and decision rules.
Implementation and pilot testing are combined here so assessors can see how the intervention would be tried, monitored, adjusted, or stopped.
Project Road Map:
collect baseline data, finalise geofence, reporting duty, exemption rules and side-street bay locations.
launch empty-mileage fee, no-stopping rule and app-directed PHV bays, with protected access for disabled and health-related trips.
monitor bus reliability, empty PHV activity, kerbside impact, inclusivity, driver livelihood and displacement.
scale only if reliability improves without unacceptable trade-offs; otherwise adjust or stop.
Reliability
Removing empty PHV running and disruptive stopping is expected to improve bus speeds and reduce journey-time variability.
Value for money
Capital cost is reduced by using existing ANPR, camera enforcement, congestion-charge infrastructure, and operator app data where possible.
Safety
Reducing kerbside stopping reduces door-opening conflict, pedestrian risk, and boarding into traffic.
Customer service
Some PHV passengers may walk slightly further to designated pickup points, but faster and more reliable buses make switching more attractive for marginal users.
Inclusivity
Blue Badge, Freedom Pass, disabled-user and health-related trips should be protected through exemptions and monitoring.
Sustainability
Improving bus reliability supports mode shift toward sustainable transport and the CAZ 95% sustainable mode-share target.
Pilot traffic-light dashboard
Pilot targets, not measured outcomes.
Location: Piccadilly Circus / Regent Street South / Haymarket. Duration: 6 months. Baseline: 1-2 months pre-pilot. Intervention: remaining pilot period. All metrics are measured against baseline.
Bus reliability
Bus speed and journey-time variability against baseline.
Scale: speed +5%; variability -5%Adjust: 1-5%Redesign: no gain
PHV reduction
Empty PHV miles/minutes inside the corridor.
Scale: -10%Adjust: 1-10%Redesign: no reduction
Kerbside impact
Disruptive PHV stops near bus routes.
Scale: -20%Adjust: 1-20%Redesign: hotspots
Inclusivity
Disabled and health-related door-to-door trips maintained.
Scale: 95%+Adjust: 90-95%Redesign: below 90%
Driver livelihood
Driver revenue against an agreed review floor.
Scale: above floorAdjust: within 5%Redesign: below floor
Displacement
Nearby-street PHV volume increase.
Scale: below 5%Adjust: 5-10%Redesign: over 10%
Monitoring and decision rules
These metrics are intentionally multi-dimensional: the pilot only succeeds if buses improve without undermining accessibility, driver livelihoods, or nearby-street conditions.
If targets are not met, the pilot should pause, adjust, or redesign rather than scaling automatically.
Evidence & References
Prior attempts and references stay expandable for scan-friendly reading.
Poster references run from [1]–[17]. Image references and AI visual asset credits are listed separately below and do not change the poster reference numbering.
Previous attempts and precedents
PHV licence cap
Not selected because previous attempts to cap PHV numbers were politically difficult or untenable [9], [12]. This supports a targeted corridor intervention rather than a blanket cap.
Heathrow Authorised Vehicle Area and geofencing
Used as a practical precedent for geofenced vehicle management [10].
PHV congestion charge exemption removal
Used as evidence that financial incentives can influence PHV behaviour [6], with additional context on Congestion Charge costs and private-hire challenge/implementation issues [15], [17].
Adaptation for this proposal
The intervention does not ban PHVs. It targets avoidable empty running and non-essential stopping on bus corridors while protecting exempt and essential door-to-door users.
Poster references [1]–[17]
[1]London Assembly, "Bus Journeys Taking Longer and Longer…," Greater London Authority, London, UK, Dec. 8, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-londonassembly-does/london-assembly-press-releases/bus-journeys-taking-longer-and-longer. [Accessed: Jun. 5, 2026].
[2]Transport for London, "Borough-level Bus Speeds," TfL, 2024–25. [Online]. Available: https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/borough-all-bus-speeds-to-p12-2025.xlsx. Processed by the authors, 2026. [Accessed: Jun. 5, 2026].
[3]Transport for London, "Congestion Charge Marks 20 Years of Keeping London Moving Sustainably," Transport for London, London, UK, Feb. 17, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://tfl.gov.uk/infofor/media/press-releases/2023/february/congestion-charge-marks-20-years-of-keeping-londonmoving-sustainably. [Accessed: Jun. 4, 2026].
[4]Transport for London, "Written evidence submitted by Transport for London (URB0093)," House of Commons Transport Committee: Urban Congestion Inquiry, UK Parliament. [Online]. Available: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/77255/html/. [Accessed: Jun. 5, 2026].
[5]Transport for London, Taxi and private hire action plan 2025, pp. 13–15. [Online]. Available: https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/taxi-private-hire-action-plan-2025.pdf. [Accessed: Jun. 5, 2026].
[6]Transport for London, "Changes proposed to Congestion Charge to reduce traffic and improve air quality," TfL Press Office, London, UK, Jul. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2018/july/changes-proposed-to-congestion-charge-to-reduce-traffic-and-improve-air-quality. [Accessed: Jun. 9, 2026].
[7]R. Binns, J. Stein, S. Datta, M. Van Kleek, and N. Shadbolt, "Not Even Nice Work If You Can Get It: A Longitudinal Study of Uber's Algorithmic Pay and Pricing," in Proc. ACM Conf. Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), Jun. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.15278. [Accessed: Jun. 5, 2026].
[8]Greater London Authority, Mayor's Transport Strategy. London: GLA, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mayors-transport-strategy-2018.pdf. [Accessed: Jun. 5, 2026].
[9]Department for Transport, "Government Response to the Report of the Task and Finish Group on Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing," UK Government, Feb. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f76f9308fa8f55e36671b26/taxi-task-and-finish-gov-response.pdf. [Accessed: Jun. 9, 2026].
[10]Heathrow Airport, "New Private Hire Vehicles Rules in Place at Heathrow," Heathrow Media Centre, May 12, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/detail/6309. [Accessed: Jun. 8, 2026].
[11]Transport for London, "Travel in London Report 12," TfL, 2019, p. 13. [Online]. Available: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-12.pdf. [Accessed: Jun. 9, 2026].
[12]P. Richardson, "Government level change needed: Cross-border hiring loophole is blocking London minicab cap, warns Deputy Mayor of London," TaxiPoint, Apr. 2, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/government-level-change-needed-cross-border-hiring-loophole-is-blocking-london-minicab-cap-warns-d. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
[13]London Assembly Transport Committee, London Stalling: Reducing Traffic Congestion in London. London, UK: Greater London Authority, Jan. 19, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://london.gov.uk/traffic-congestion-report. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
[14]The Londoner, "Feel like your bus is getting slower? It probably is," Jul. 23, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/feel-like-your-bus/. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
[15]Greater London Authority, "Congestion Charge costs," London City Hall — Questions to the Mayor. [Online]. Available: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/congestion-charge-costs-1. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
[16]Greater London Authority, "Uber’s Trip Radar (2)," London City Hall — Questions to the Mayor, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/ubers-trip-radar-2. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
[17]J. Mathewson, "Private hire Congestion Charge challenged in the courts," City Matters, Jul. 2, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.citymatters.london/private-hire-congestion-charge-challenged-courts/. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
Image and visual asset references
[a]Transport for London logo / roundel image. Available: https://share.google/94PR3qkhbBgyO42ET. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
[b]Westminster City Council logo image. Available: https://share.google/WumAhsS6lNtcQzTYY. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
[c]Uber logo image. Available: https://share.google/DMM7pCT9MZWYdSjY1. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
[d]Bolt logo image. Available: https://share.google/lvme2qwC9Ki5h8V9e. [Accessed: Jun. 10, 2026].
Visual asset credits
- Homepage map: AI-generated original map-style illustration created with ChatGPT image generation, OpenAI, 10 June 2026. Used as an illustrative, non-official map-style visual for the Piccadilly Circus pilot focus area. Not based on Google Maps, TfL mapping, or external map tiles.
- Before/After animation: Custom schematic SVG/CSS animation created by the project team with AI coding assistance using Codex/Claude, 10 June 2026. Used as an illustrative comparison of bus-corridor operation before and after the proposed intervention. Not a measured traffic simulation.
GAI statement
“We acknowledge the use of Claude (Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.8, Anthropic, https://claude.ai) to support literature identification, source verification, problem framing discussion, and iterative review of draft wording. Interactions took the form of extended dialogue in which we proposed directions, supplied data, and drafted analysis, and Claude provided suggestions which we critically evaluated to help consider our next steps. Claude was also used to verify specific statistics against their original sources in infrequently opened longer documents, and to help format citations. Claude does not have the ability to provide shareable chat links.”
This companion website was structured and formatted with AI support, then reviewed and edited by the team for accuracy, relevance, and consistency with the poster.