BRIDGING THE FIRST AND LAST MILE: Where taxis and PHVs plug the gaps in UK public transport

With bus networks under pressure and rail journeys still starting and ending off-network, taxis, private hire and demand responsive services are increasingly being looked at as the practical connectors, even as Low Traffic Neighbourhood layouts have complicated access and journey times in some areas.

Taxis and private hire vehicles remain one of the few transport options that can reliably connect passengers from a front door to a rail station, hospital entrance or late-night workplace when fixed-route services do not line up. The “first-mile/last-mile” problem is not new, but it has become more visible since the pandemic as travel patterns shifted, some bus frequencies were reduced, and local road layouts changed quickly in many towns and cities.

In practice, the strongest demand tends to sit in the gaps public transport struggles to serve well: early mornings, late nights, low-density suburbs and rural areas, and trips requiring step-free access or assistance. Door-to-door trips to healthcare are a consistent driver. The NHS Healthcare Travel Costs Scheme allows eligible patients on certain benefits to claim travel costs for NHS treatment, and the wider ecosystem includes non-emergency patient transport services for those who cannot travel by public or private transport due to medical need. For many people who do not meet the threshold for dedicated patient transport, taxis and PHVs become the default, especially when buses have stopped running.

London’s Taxicard model is one of the clearest examples of a publicly-backed approach that uses the taxi and minicab market to deliver mobility outcomes. Transport for London (TfL) describes Taxicard as a subsidised scheme for London residents with mobility impairments or sight impairment, alongside other door-to-door services. London Councils, which runs Taxicard across boroughs, says it offers subsidised travel in licensed taxis and PHVs for eligible residents.   While it is not framed as a rail feeder programme, it demonstrates how public bodies can integrate taxis and PHVs into an access strategy without building a new fleet.

Outside London, the policy conversation has increasingly shifted towards demand responsive transport, including services delivered with smaller vehicles and app-based booking that can function as feeders to stations and interchanges. The Department for Transport (DfT) published updated guidance in December 2025 on how English local authorities can provide demand responsive transport and the ways these services can complement fixed routes.

Industry and public-sector documents consistently describe DRT as a tool to bridge first and last mile gaps to rail and tram networks, particularly in lower-density areas where a fixed route will not pencil out. The operational implication for taxi and PHV stakeholders is that more councils may procure “flexible” services that look and feel closer to private hire dispatch, but are funded and governed like public transport.

Join us on WhatsApp here

The commercial opportunity comes with constraints. Where local authorities commission shared DRT services as flexible bus operations, they must meet regulatory standards such as pick-up windows, and they carry performance and compliance risk that can be enforced through the Traffic Commissioners framework. That matters for any operator planning to supply vehicles, drivers, or dispatch technology into these contracts. It also matters for the taxi trade because the growth pathway may be less about ad hoc street work and more about tendered service delivery, with tighter data reporting and service quality requirements than many local markets have historically demanded.

Against that backdrop, Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes have become a flashpoint because they can change how effectively a taxi or PHV can complete the last mile, particularly for passengers who cannot walk the final distance. TfL’s own evidence summary on LTNs argues that, across London, many schemes reduced traffic on internal streets and did not show a median increase on boundary roads, and it points to casualty reductions within LTNs. However, taxi and PHV drivers operate at the level of individual trips, and the “shape” of a neighbourhood matters as much as the headline averages. Filters, camera-enforced restrictions and diverted routings can add distance and time to reach specific addresses, especially when a passenger’s destination is close to a boundary road but only accessible by a longer permitted route.

That friction is visible in formal feedback channels. In TfL’s 2024/25 taxi fares and tariffs review documentation, respondents criticised the impacts of LTNs on taxi journey times and fares, and raised the issue of access for taxis. For passengers, longer routings can mean higher metered fares in hackney vehicles, while for drivers it can mean fewer completed jobs per shift. For fleets and dispatchers, it can mean more variability in estimated arrival times, more customer complaints and a higher operational burden on route planning.

Accessibility advocates have also cautioned that rapid street changes can leave some disabled travellers feeling overlooked, which has a direct link to taxi reliance. A Transport for All report on LTNs and disabled people stated that, for some disabled people, using a car or taxi is the only accessible option, and it reported problems with how changes were communicated to disabled participants. The operational point for local authorities is that if street designs reduce practical access for door-to-door trips, demand may not shift cleanly to walking and cycling, but may instead concentrate further into taxis and PHVs, often at higher cost to the traveller.

For councils and transport authorities considering integration, the near-term choices are pragmatic. One option is targeted subsidy for defined trips, such as station feeders at specific times, hospital links when buses stop, or “guaranteed ride home” schemes that reduce the risk of being stranded after a rail delay. Another is formal integration through booking and ticketing, where a passenger buys a rail ticket that includes a feeder leg provided by a contracted taxi, PHV or DRT vehicle. DfT’s continuing emphasis on DRT gives councils a policy framework to justify these models, but the success will still depend on network design, enforcement and whether road layouts support efficient door-to-door operations rather than treating them as an afterthought.

What is missing in much of the debate is a clear measurement of the “last 800 metres” effect. LTNs may deliver area-wide safety and environment benefits, but for taxi and PHV operations the question is whether passengers end up walking further than they can manage, paying more than they expected, or switching to less regulated options because the legal, insured vehicle is slower to reach them. Transport authorities that want taxis and PHVs to play a structured role in the first and last mile will likely have to treat access as a performance metric, not a by-product, and design exemptions, ranks, loading, and routing with the same seriousness they apply to bus priority.