When speaking with constituents and transportation professionals, many concerns continue to be raised regarding transportation policy and whether legislation reflects the realities of the industry. These concerns are being raised because transportation professionals and everyday users believe there is an opportunity to modernise the sector and better align policy with how transportation operates today.

One example is the limousine licence framework. The concern is not with limousine services themselves. Limousine services are important and have a place within Bermuda’s transportation sector. In fact, the Motor Car Act 1951 under Section 36A (4) already defines limousine services as transportation by reservation or appointment.

The challenge is that today there appears to be two different transportation models operating under the same category.

On one side are operators with luxury vehicles such as BMW and Mercedes. These operators provide premium transportation services for hotels, executive clients, weddings, international visitors, and high-end events. They operate at higher rates, often around $166 per transfer, and cater to clients seeking a luxury experience.

On the other side are vehicles operating under limousine licences that are often the same make and model as ordinary taxis. A common example raised by operators is the Toyota Vellfire, which is used by both taxi operators and some limousine operators.

This creates confusion because the public sees little distinction between a standard transportation vehicle and a premium limousine service.

At the same time, the Motor Car Act 1951 under Section 36A (6) and (7) allowed taxi permit holders to convert to limousine permits. Perhaps this presents an opportunity for Government to modernise the framework.

The existing luxury limousine category could remain for premium operators using luxury vehicles and serving high-end clientele, while a new prearranged transportation category could be introduced for appointment-based services using standard passenger vehicles.

This category could have its own pricing framework, potentially within a range of $85 to $110 per transfer, reflecting the realities of the market while maintaining a distinction from premium limousine services.

This approach would preserve the limousine industry, recognise genuine luxury services and create clarity for operators and the public alike.

Another example relates to the AT (Airport Transfer) licence. The AT licence was introduced as a restricted licence intended to support transportation demand, specifically for airport and hotel transfers where additional capacity was needed.

However, concerns continue to be raised that some AT licence holders may now be operating beyond that original purpose.

The concern from many transportation operators is that some AT vehicles are effectively functioning as taxi services, but without many of the requirements and restrictions that apply to taxis. These vehicles do not operate with taxi tops or under the same taxi framework, yet are able to use a wider range of vehicle models while undertaking similar work.

This creates frustration among taxi operators who have invested heavily into permits and operate under stricter regulations.

Recent public examples have added to these concerns. During SailGP, an AT vehicle was reportedly observed providing transportation services similar to limousine operations, which has led some operators to question whether the licence is being used in accordance with its intended purpose.

The issue being raised is not the existence of the licence itself. The AT licence serves an important purpose.

The question being asked is whether the present oversight and enforcement framework is sufficient to ensure that the licence remains within its original category of airport and hotel transfer services.

If the industry is evolving, then perhaps this too should be reviewed so that all operators are working under clear categories, fair rules and consistent standards.

Finally, even smaller transportation issues demonstrate how technology is changing the industry and why policy must evolve with it.

For example, electric pedal bikes and electric bikes continue to grow in popularity and could become an important part of Bermuda’s transportation future. However, Regulation 7 of the Motor Car (Construction, Equipment and Use) Regulations 1952 prohibits motorcycles from having a reverse gear.

Modern electric bikes sometimes include low-speed reverse functionality simply to help manoeuvre heavier battery-powered vehicles, particularly on steep inclines.

This may appear to be a small issue, but it demonstrates a broader point; transportation policy should evolve alongside technology and practical use.

Ultimately, transportation professionals, operators, and everyday users should remain part of these discussions because they experience these challenges every day and can help shape practical solutions.

Transportation policy works best when legislation, technology, and industry experience move together. Bermuda has an opportunity to modernise transportation while preserving fairness, supporting operators, and creating clearer pathways for the future.

• Joe Marable was a One Bermuda Alliance candidate for Hamilton West in the 2025 General Election