08 October 2015
Transports of Delight
by J R Thomas
Given the influence it has on the daily lives of so many Londoners, it is surprisingly seldom that Transport for London (or TfL as it more coyly likes to be called) gets into the headlines. But it certainly did last week, over what it no doubt thought might be a little-noticed “consultation” with Londoners over a change in the rules governing Uber, the new upstart in the London taxi business.
Uber may be new but it has shown astonishing rates of growth in London, as it has in many cities around the world. It is estimated that whilst there were about 50,000 minicabs operating in London in 2008, there are now getting on for 90,000. All of that growth is from the Uber brand. For those not yet familiar with it, it has injected large-scale use of technology into the old hackney cab business (as London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson, calls it). Through an app on the potential passenger’s phone, a Uber registered cab can be identified and called; and as there are so many on the streets it is likely that one will be available within literally a couple of minutes. No more frantic waving from the pavement edge, no more long waits in the rush hour as streams of single occupation black taxis leave the City for Chelsea. Uber carefully vets its drivers and their vehicles, so you are likely to be seated in the back of a modern Prius or similar vehicle. Whether you miss the traditional black cab with its upright seats and elevated views, or indeed the traditional uptight cabbie with his elongated views, is a matter of personal taste, but Uber have certainly changed the taxi market very dramatically.
The old mini-cab business is, so the rumour has it, devastated by the new competition, perhaps not surprisingly given the nature of the typically old domestic cars in common use and various scandals over the poor training and antecedents of some drivers (rare, it should be said, but a little scandal goes a long way when you contemplate getting into the back of a late-night Nissan). What is causing much more controversy is the Uber effect on the black cab business, which is also being badly hit by its rival. A brief survey of any London thoroughfare will reveal all: lots of cabs with their yellow “TAXI” lights sparkling hopefully.
The cab trade is not inclined to take this lying down or even sitting in a queue, and has been vigorously demonstrating against the lack of Uber-regulation. Fleets of black taxis have been used to cause huge congestion by blockading Trafalgar Square and Regent Street, and the Mayor (formerly a sort of cabbies hero) has been shouted down by crowds of cabbies in public.
The cabbies have been especially vociferous against TfL, and it seems that TfL has listened. Its consultation (consultation, to Tfl, tends to be about what they intend to happen, rather than asking Londoners what they would like to happen) sets out a new regulatory regime to be imposed on Uber and other digital-based services. Among its 25 suggestions for further or greater regulation are the introduction of mandatory waiting times of a minimum five minutes (reduced from the original suggestion of 15 minutes), thus giving rise to the bizarre spectacle of Uber taxis parked, doors locked, next to their intended passengers, waiting for TfL mandated time to pass. Uber drivers would only be allowed to work for one operator under the proposals. And TfL also propose restrictions on ride sharing, partially to attack Uber’s next intended offering which will involve ride pooling (several customers sharing one vehicle). As drafted, though, this attacks one of the very things TfL was at one time encouraging – sharing vehicles to reduce congestion. TfL proposes banning the Uber system of showing the location of vehicles available for hire on the grounds that this visibility diminishes customer safety (it does not explain how). Although many of the suggestions are minor, the general tenor is to make life more difficult for Uber and new entrants generally.
What TfL probably did not expect was the furious reaction from the public to their proposals. After years of choice between expensive black cabs and battered minicabs, Uber was a revelation – reliable, quick to arrive, polite drivers, transparent and competitive pricing. The black cab drivers protest that they have to drive specialist and expensive vehicles, with capability to carry disabled passengers, and features (such as tight turning circles) that make them more London-friendly. Cabbies spend years doing “the knowledge”, the specialist training regarding London’s streets and features which they have to pass to get a cabbies licence.
The trouble is that much of this is made redundant by new technology. U-turns are banned in many streets anyway; the traditional cab is no safer or less polluting than modern domestic cars; sat-navs, Google maps, or their many competitors are almost as good a guide to route planning as a cabbie’s memory (indeed cab drivers are frequently to be noticed consulting a sat-nav down by their side). Cabbies might be better placed if they truly offered a premium service – if only by getting out of the cab to help with luggage – and also adapted Uber type features, the technology being not hugely expensive, well tested, and widely available.
Much of the noisy hostility to TfL’s suggestions has berated their seeming resistance to technology. Many commentators have suggested that what they should be doing is setting out a starting grid for all taxi operators which imposes a regime of regulation neutral between the hackney cab operators (the cabbies) and the mini-cabs (Uber and its competitors). A visibly alarmed Boris waded into the taxi war in Monday’s Daily Telegraph, defending TfL and citing the ancient hackney cab regulations as at the root of the problem. To some extent legally it is, but then one would expect the modernising Boris to call for change, not to reinforce old restrictions.
Both TfL and the Mayor seem to have been caught on the wrong side of the road in the Uber controversy. One might expect TfL to want to regulate more. It is after all an enormous and ever-growing bureaucracy founded by Ken Livingstone and very much living his interventionist control-led approach. It has 28,000 plus employees now, as against 400 at its foundation, and is constantly expanding its empire, sucking into its orbit and operations most of London’s overground railways as well as the Underground system. All aspects of London’s public transport are heavily regulated, even when nominally privately operated or serviced. It has also become a big spender, of course, not just on new trains and the modernisation (much needed) of the Underground, but also now on cycle lanes. This is a Boris pet project, but one which is controversial even among cyclists for the way it is being done – TfL is creating very expensive (but dangerous, say many cyclists) specialist lanes where the roads are wide enough, but abandoning them (and cyclists) at narrow points and tricky junctions. That programme is also becoming the subject of public anger for its uncoordinated and oddly planned nature, which is causing huge traffic congestion in central London, especially by the main river crossings. Current big spend projects also include the Garden Bridge, previously touched on in these pages, and the Silvertown Tunnel. Meanwhile many road surfaces are crumbling into almost rough tracks, a further danger and annoyance for cyclists and motorists whose tyres and suspensions bear the brunt of this neglect.
But it is that approach which suggests where the roots of TfL’s anti Uber approach may lie. TfL hates the private car, and would like to drive it out of London, transferring all passenger movement to its public transport networks. Uber is not really the way it wants to go, and perhaps it prefers a highly regulated black cab trade to the relatively free spirits of part-time flexible mini-cab drivers. What is surprising is to find Boris apparently of the same mindset. After all, whoever is running London and indeed the country in ten years time is going to have to cope with the next great step forward in motoring technology – driverless cars and driverless cabs. That should really challenge the regulation and conduct of the hackney carriage business.
