Uber drivers slam Portsmouth bus lane plans as pointless and a waste of taxpayers' money
Private hire vehicles will be allowed to use two bus lanes in Portsmouth despite the trade saying it is a “disappointing”, “pointless”, and “waste of public money”.
Under the proposal, Portsmouth City Council-licensed private hire vehicles will now be able to use Cosham Interchange and Northern Road bus lanes.
In October 2024, transport cabinet member Cllr Peter Candlish decided not to extend the authorisation to use additional bus lanes in Portsmouth by private hire vehicles. It was said he saw “no hard evidence” that it would be a benefit to the transport network in the city overall or improve road safety, and there was a lack of funding to do the work required.
However, the scrutiny panel ‘called in’ the decision. After reviewing it in November, the panel concluded that the decision may have been taken without adequate information or based upon “inaccurate” or “incorrect” information. Therefore, the decision was asked to be reviewed again.
During the intervening period, officers identified ways to partially overcome the cabinet’s major concern, the lack of budget.
Under the bus services improvement program (BSIP), two bus lanes, Cosham Interchange and Northern Road bus lanes, have been identified for city council-licensed private hire vehicles’ access. The estimated cost is £71,500, fully funded by the BSIP.
At the transport meeting (May 22), Cllr George Madgwick welcomed the “much better report”.
However, he highlighted that Uber and Hackney’s representatives approached him to express disappointment with the lack of consultation before publishing the reviewed report.
Cllr Madgwick said: “They felt they would have appreciated being asked about their priorities.
“Say you can only afford two bus lanes; it would have been nice to consult with them to say, look, we can only afford two or three; which of these preferences would you prefer? And try to get some feedback from them because, at the end of the day, these are thrones that will be used daily.
“I know they were a little disgruntled and upset about it because they feel that they could have had some impact on the decision.”
Peter Southerland, the trade representative for Uber drivers, expressed his disappointment in a letter to the council regarding the proposals, calling them “pointless” and a “waste of public money.”
In his statement, he said that their requests to access other bus lanes in the city, which provide real benefits, save time journeys and cause minimal disturbance to buses, are “continually denied.”
Mr Southerland said: “It would appear that the cabinet member for transport is now offering access to two areas in Cosham as some olive branch to the trade whilst being determined not to allow the wider access that we have been seeking for years.
He added that the estimated cost of £38,500 is pointless and a waste of public money since some bus lanes would “actually offer no real benefits” and are a “pointless exercise”.
“I can assure the cabinet member for transport that we can easily provide a prioritised list of bus lanes that we would like access to, which would provide real-time travel savings whilst causing minimal disturbance to buses,” he said.
“We believe that access to the Cosham interchange will cause greater disruption to buses.”
Cllr Emily Strudwick said that the trade should have been consulted for the proposal as they are the main interested parties.
Cllr Strudwick said: “None of us are PHV (private hire vehicle) drivers or hackney carriage drivers. They are the ones that this is going to affect. They should have been at the forefront.”
But, she said: “I’ll play devil’s advocate. It’s better than nothing, and it might ease just slightly.”
After hearing the proposals, the cabinet member for transport, Cllr Candlish, approved the application.
“If I look at what is new in this report, it looks to me that this is an idea that is worth exploring. We could have the money for it if it proves to be a good idea. We have to establish both its feasibility and its desirability. If that is positive, I would say we should go forward. If that comes forward and is either technically infeasible or not desired by the majority of people, we would not do it.”