Robotaxis in London

Paper by John Siraut of Fortia Insight with polling data from BMG

Introduction

Robotaxis are autonomous vehicles that provide on‑demand ride‑hailing without the need for a human driver, operating within defined geofenced areas. They offer the potential for reduced operating costs, improved safety by reducing human error and continuous 24/7 service availability.

“Two thirds of British adults have heard of robotaxis — but only one in four can claim genuine knowledge of what the technology involves. The public’s judgement is being formed in a partial-information environment, making the design of clear public communication as important as the regulatory framework itself.” BMG Survey, 2025: 67% awareness; 24% knowledgeable (n=1,540)

This paper draws on national polling data alongside operational evidence from existing deployments to assess the likely market, workforce, transport and equity impacts of robotaxi deployment in London. It concludes with a set of policy recommendations for government.

What Is Being Proposed in London?

Several companies are preparing robotaxi deployments in London. Wayve plans a limited safety‑driver trial with Uber beginning in spring 2026, while Waymo intends to introduce a full robotaxi service later in 2026, drawing on its experience in five US cities. Baidu’s Apollo Go service may also enter the UK market via partnerships with Uber and Lyft. Meaning London could see both US and Chinese operators in competition with each other for the first time. Early operations are expected to be limited to selected boroughs and will expand gradually, subject to Transport for London (TfL) approvals, data‑sharing obligations, safety standards and local authority engagement.

Two thirds of GB adults (67%) and approximately three quarters of Londoners have heard of robotaxis . However, depth of knowledge is far more limited: only 24.1% describe themselves as knowledgeable, while 43% have heard of robotaxis but say they know little, and 33% report no awareness at all. This about a technology already being tested on London’s streets.

Scale of Robotaxi Operations in the USA and China

Robotaxis are already operating in several cities abroad. Waymo runs more than 2,000 autonomous vehicles across Atlanta, Austin, Los Angeles, Phoenix and San Francisco, completing approximately 250,000 rides per week. In China, Baidu’s Apollo Go delivered 2.2 million trips in a single quarter across sixteen cities and has exceeded 14 million cumulative trips overall. However, to put these figures into context, around 2m taxi /ride app trips are made every day in Beijing and over a 150,000 a day in San Francisco.

Potential Market Impacts

Experience from ride‑hailing apps illustrates how quickly disruption can unfold. In New York, yellow cabs once completed around 500,000 trips per day. The arrival of Uber and Lyft initially had minimal impact, but within two years these platforms captured around half the taxi market, resulting in a dramatic decline in yellow‑cab usage. So that now yellow cabs account for around just 100,000 trips per day and around 15% of a much larger total taxi/ride app market. Robotaxis may have a similar impact in disrupting the market, especially as operational costs fall and fares become competitive with human‑driven taxis and private‑hire vehicles.

Impacts on London’s Taxi and PHV Sectors

London’s black taxi fleet has been shrinking for more than a decade. The number of licensed taxis fell from 22,445 in 2009/10 to 14,570 in 2024/25, while taxi driver numbers fell from over 25,000 to around 16,700 over the same period. In contrast, private‑hire vehicles (PHVs) expanded rapidly after app‑based platforms entered the market. PHV driver numbers rose from 59,000 in 2009/10 to more than 106,000 in 2024/25, although the number of operators decreased significantly as the industry consolidated around app‑based platforms. Robotaxis could accelerate these trends, likely impacting PHV drivers first and traditional taxi drivers later as price competition intensifies.

Workforce Demographics and Social Impacts

Both London taxi and PHV workforces are overwhelmingly male, with 98% of drivers in each sector being men. However, their ethnic and age profiles differ markedly. Taxi drivers are predominantly White British and skew older, with 41% aged 51–60 and 33% over 60. PHV drivers are far more ethnically diverse, 41% Asian or Asian British and 15% Black or Black British and are generally younger, with 26% aged 31–40. These differences suggest that robotaxi deployment may disproportionately affect specific demographic groups, particularly ethnically diverse PHV drivers who rely on flexible gig‑economy work.

Source: BMG Research Omnibus Survey, 2025. Question R3 Summary. Base: All respondents (n=1,540).

The BMG survey shows that the British public anticipates a similar decline for traditional taxis: 42.7% of respondents expect traditional taxi use to decline as a result of robotaxi deployment. The public has, in effect, already written the black cab’s market obituary

Impact on Public Transport

Robotaxis may affect public transport in two ways. First, if robotaxis receive similar priority to taxis and are permitted to use bus lanes, their presence could slow bus operations and increase operating costs. Second, robotaxis may draw passengers away from more sustainable transport modes. Evidence from US cities shows strong correlations between ride‑hailing growth and decline in bus and subway use. Research from California suggests that up to half of ride‑hailing trips came from passengers switching from public or active travel modes.

Source: BMG Research Omnibus Survey, 2025. Question R3 Summary. Base: All respondents (n=1,540).

The BMG survey suggests the public think the impact on public transport while negative will not be as great as its impact on taxis.

Impact on Congestion and Empty Running

Ride‑hailing services typically operate with 30–40% deadheading, meaning vehicles run empty while repositioning. Robotaxis may exhibit even higher levels of empty running during early deployment, as they adjust to local demand patterns and reposition more frequently. In dense urban areas such as London, this could exacerbate congestion unless carefully managed through regulation and kerbside controls.

Source: BMG Research Omnibus Survey, 2025. Question R3 Summary. Base: All respondents (n=1,540).

Interestingly the BMG survey found the public expect traffic congestion to worsen even through private vehicle use is expected to decline although they anticipate walking to school will fall.

Regulatory Considerations

London will need to address several regulatory challenges, including pricing rules, data‑sharing requirements, operational caps and passenger safety standards.

Price and accessibility

A key question for policy makers is whether robotaxis should be regulated like Taxis or PHVs. Taxis operate to a set price tariff, generally cannot refuse a fare and be fully accessible. PHVs can operate more flexible pricing including surge pricing at times of particular high demand, refuse to accept a fare to locations they don’t want to serve and do not need to offer a fully accessible vehicle. If robotaxis lead to the demise of conventional taxis, then some users will find themselves excluded from the network. On the other hand, to onerous regulation may stifle innovation. Getting the balance right in the interests of all users will be a key challenge for policy makers. While China has showcased prototypes with ramps, voice navigation and other aids tailored for disabled passengers US operators have tended to lag behind in developing Robotaxi services that are as accessible as London’s taxis.

While the public may not be fully conversant with Robotaxis, they do have strong views on pricing and accessibility.

Flexible pricing

The BMG survey asked respondents the extent to which they would support or oppose flexible pricing for robotaxi services, that is, whether fares should be fixed or flex to match supply and demand. The results are among the clearest in the survey: 41.8% of respondents express opposition, compared with only 18.2% in support. Although in London while the majority of respondents still oppose flexible pricing there is a much smaller gap between those who oppose and those who support.

However, there are major differences in view on flexible pricing by age. The younger generations have small majorities in favour of flexible pricing which rapidly turns to strong opposition among older age groups.

Source: BMG Research Omnibus Survey, 2025. Question R3 Summary. Base: All respondents (n=1,540).

It is also notable that those surveyed expect transport costs to rise with the introduction of robotaxis.

Source: BMG Research Omnibus Survey, 2025. Question R3 Summary. Base: All respondents (n=1,540).

Accessibility and Inclusion

A second key regulatory question is whether robotaxis should be required to offer the same accessibility standards as London’s licensed taxis, wheelchair accessibility, audio and visual navigation support, and the ability to accommodate a range of physical and sensory impairments. The BMG survey provides the clearest mandate in the entire dataset for a mandatory requirement.

“Seven in ten British adults — 70.2% — say it is important that robotaxis be fully accessible vehicles. Only 11.5% consider accessibility unimportant. This is the strongest single policy mandate in the survey.” BMG Survey, 2025 (n=1,540)

When asked how important it is for robotaxis to be fully accessible, including wheelchair ramps and audio/visual navigation support, 45.8% of respondents said, “very important” and 24.4% said “quite important”, giving a net “important” figure of 70.2%. Only 7.6% said “not very important” and 3.9% said “not important at all”, with 18.3% unsure.

This mandate is consistent across all age groups

Source: BMG Research Omnibus Survey, 2025. Question R3 Summary. Base: All respondents (n=1,540).

Additional Considerations and Policy Implications

While robotaxis present opportunities for improved efficiency and lower operating costs, their introduction in London raises several further issues that extend beyond immediate market or transport impacts. Addressing these proactively will be essential to ensuring that autonomous mobility supports, rather than undermines, broader policy objectives across safety, equity, sustainability and urban management.

Safety, Reliability and Emergency Response

Experience from early deployments overseas shows that the transition from safety‑driver trials to fully driverless operation can expose new reliability challenges. These include unexpected braking, difficulties negotiating roadworks and confusion around emergency vehicles, issues that London’s dense, irregular street network may amplify. Effective integration with the emergency services will be particularly important, given past incidents where autonomous vehicles abroad have obstructed ambulances or fire crews.

For London, a phased approach to safety‑driver withdrawal, supported by transparent reporting of incidents and near‑misses, would help maintain public confidence. Clear operational protocols, covering everything from how robotaxis respond to emergency vehicles to requirements for remote monitoring, will be necessary before any large‑scale rollout.

It is notable that at present the public believes that road accidents will increase with the introduction of robotaxis. Similar surveys found the same in the USA and China before their introduction but once people had travelled in them, views gradually changed.

Source: BMG Research Omnibus Survey, 2025. Question R3 Summary. Base: All respondents (n=1,540).

Data Governance, Privacy and Cyber‑Security

Robotaxis rely on continuous flows of high‑resolution data, including video, lidar and passenger information. This raises concerns about privacy, security and data access, especially where operators are headquartered overseas. Ensuring that data collected on London’s streets is stored, processed and protected in accordance with UK standards will be essential.

Policymakers may wish to introduce a unified data‑governance framework, setting out requirements for data‑sharing with TfL, rules on video retention and anonymisation and clear cyber‑security obligations. This could include mandated independent audits and limits on the offshoring of sensitive operational data.

Equity and Inclusion

Robotaxi deployments are likely to begin in commercially attractive, high‑demand areas, risking the emergence of a two‑tier mobility system in which some communities benefit from lower‑cost autonomous services while others see little improvement. To avoid widening existing inequalities in transport access, policies may need to require minimum accessibility standards, service‑coverage obligations and alternative booking methods.

Environmental and Energy System Impacts

Although robotaxis will almost certainly be electric, their overall environmental impact will depend heavily on the extent to which they increase, or reduce, total vehicle mileage. If robotaxis generate additional demand, or substitute for public or active travel, the net effect could be higher emissions and congestion despite cleaner vehicles.

Moreover, clustering of charging depots could create localised pressures on the electricity distribution network. Policymakers may therefore need to consider integrating robotaxi operations into future road‑user charging reforms, introducing incentives for off‑peak charging and requiring operators to provide energy‑demand forecasts to support grid planning.

Kerbside Management and Street Design

Robotaxis will intensify pressure on kerbside space, particularly around stations, entertainment districts and hospitals. Without designated pick‑up and drop‑off points, autonomous vehicles may contribute to localised congestion, block cycle lanes, or circulate empty to avoid parking charges. These effects have already been observed with ride‑hailing platforms and could be exacerbated by the higher frequency and flexibility of robotaxi operations.

London may need to expand kerbside regulation through dynamic pricing, enforceable loading zones and pre‑approved staging areas. Pilot mobility hubs, combining robotaxis with public transport and micromobility, could help manage demand in high‑pressure areas and reduce conflicts with buses and cyclists.

Labour Market Transitions

The demographic differences between taxi and PHV drivers suggest that robotaxis will affect some communities more than others, with younger and more ethnically diverse PHV drivers likely to experience the earliest impacts. Given the scale of the PHV workforce in London, the shift to autonomous operations represents a significant labour‑market transition.

A coordinated response may be needed, including skills programmes for roles in fleet maintenance, remote vehicle supervision and customer support, alongside targeted financial and employment support for those displaced. Without such measures, the transition risks exacerbating existing inequalities in London’s labour market.

Competition and Market Structure

Autonomous vehicle markets tend to consolidate rapidly around a small number of providers with the capital and data required to scale. If left unmanaged, early robotaxi services could entrench dominant operators, reducing competition over time. This may lead to higher fares, restricted service areas or data‑monopoly concerns.

London may therefore wish to consider early competition safeguards, such as limits on fleet concentration, interoperability requirements for mapping and data-sharing and restrictions on exclusive partnerships between platforms and ride‑hailing operators. Ensuring a competitive market from the outset could help protect consumers and maintain service quality.

Public Trust, Transparency and Engagement

Public attitudes towards autonomous vehicles remain cautious. Safety incidents in overseas deployments have attracted significant media attention, influencing perceptions even among those with limited direct experience of the technology. Women and older people, in particular, tend to express lower levels of confidence.

Building and maintaining trust will depend on transparent performance reporting, consistent public engagement and clear communication of how robotaxis operate. TfL-led public information campaigns, together with published safety dashboards similar to those used in aviation, could help demystify the technology and improve understanding of the risks and benefits.

Integration with London’s Strategic Goals

Finally, robotaxis have implications for London’s wider transport and urban‑planning priorities. If they undermine public transport or encourage increased trip-making, they may run counter to the objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, which prioritises a shift towards public and active modes. Conversely, if managed effectively, robotaxis could support reduced car ownership, lower parking demand and new opportunities for street redesign and land‑use change.

To align robotaxis with long‑term policy aims, London may need to consider incorporating autonomous operations into future iterations of the Transport Strategy, the London Plan and Net Zero programmes. Measures such as vehicle‑mile caps, carbon‑based pricing, or integration with low-traffic neighbourhoods may be needed to prevent unintended consequences.