Government initiatives to block London’s car streets are facing new challenges in court.
Photographer: Richard Baker / In pictures
Photographer: Richard Baker / In pictures
Like London remodels its streets to accommodate more cyclists and pedestrians during the coronavirus pandemic, faces a new type of obstacle: legal challenges.
A London court ruled on January 20 that banning taxis on a central London street was illegal. In a win for several commercial taxi groups that filed the appeal, Justice Beverley Lang also found that the city’s guidelines suggesting that local cities ban taxis on some streets failed to take sufficient account of “the needs of people with protected characteristics, including the elderly or people with disabilities.”
Another legal challenge that could have even wider implications follows closely: in February, activist groups in five London neighborhoods will ask a court to consider overturning programs to create low-traffic neighborhoods. The groups will argue that officials failed to consult local communities before making decisions to block traffic, which has negatively affected vulnerable groups such as the elderly and their carers, or poorer people living close to major arteries.
Together, these lawsuits raise new questions about the fairness of the entire Streetspace program in the London pandemic. This overhaul of the city’s road system has temporarily remodeled more than 40 major streets to widen sidewalks and increase bike lanes and accelerated the introduction of low-traffic neighborhoods (LTNs): community hubs where, in an attempt to to reduce pollution and encourage travel, access by car (including taxis) is blocked or restricted.
Concerns about the disproportionate impact of these community hubs have been growing for some time. London Clean Air Activist Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, whose 9-year-old daughter Ella died of asthma, turned out to have been partly caused by pollution, he argued that LTNs worsen conditions for poorer Londoners. They did so, Kissi-Debrah said, shifting more traffic outside the desired village-type areas to more accessible areas around major roads where people on lower incomes are more likely to live. Activists challenging London’s LTNs in court rely on similar arguments, arguing that the impact of traffic and air pollution on vulnerable groups in these plans has not been sufficiently taken into account.
In the recent court decision, the groups that sued represented the drivers of the emblematic black taxis in London. The United Trade Task Force and the Association of Licensed Taxi Drivers stated that, by including taxis in its restrictions on cars, TfL did not take into account the legally recognized status of taxis as public transport.
The challenge centered on Bishopsgate, an important route leading to London’s financial district and Liverpool Street station, a transit junction.
The plans inaugurated this summer limited access to the street only to buses and bicycles between 7:00 and 19:00 during the week, with the sidewalks widened and improved. Tweets from the the mayor’s walking and cycling commissioner initially suggested taxis would also be allowed access. But they were excluded from the final plan, with TfL research cited in the court file suggesting that taxis accounted for up to 43% of vehicles on the road during the morning rush – an estimate disputed by taxi groups. TfL closures still allow some access to the street through side streets – including the yard at Liverpool Street Station – but it has meant that taxis have to take complicated routes at higher costs and cannot guarantee falling on the doorstep.
The court’s verdict does not attract any punches in its comments about TfL. The space of the street is changing, which justice Lang called “radical” were “symptomatic of a poorly considered response that tried to take advantage of the pandemic to move, in an emergency without consultation” she wrote in her sentence. The justification for the adjustments – “after the blockade, due to limited public transport capacity, there would be a major increase in pedestrians and cyclists” – was “mere assumption”, Judge Lang said.
According to a statement a A spokesperson for TfL, the agency is “disappointed with the decision” and intends to appeal. “Temporary street space schemes make safer essential travel at this extremely difficult time and are vital to ensuring that increased car traffic does not threaten London’s recovery from coronavirus.”
Simon Still with the London cycling campaign He described the process as “the latest in a long history of the taxi industry to oppose any scheme aimed at reducing car use and stimulating walking and cycling” in a statement. Reducing car traffic is “in the best interests of Londoners, including the elderly and people with disabilities,” he wrote.
London is one of the many cities facing legal challenges in connection with street reconfigurations. In 2020, Berlin was subjected to a legal battle temporary bike lanes – the courts judging, as in London, that street changes were illegal because an insufficient case had been made for their necessity. As in London, no actual changes were needed in the city until the call was heard later this year. And in 2018, a French court ruled that closing Paris to cars in the Lower Seine was illegal – in part because, again, the court said some of the pollution management claims made in the project’s impact assessment were inaccurate. Pedestrianization remained in place after the city made an argument for it on heritage land (easier to sustain).
Similar concerns questioning the effectiveness of these road restrictions have been raised in political battles in London. In December 2020, the conservative Kensington and Chelsea neighborhoods, which cover the UK’s richest communities, removed a temporary bike lane from Kensington High Street, a major shopping street in west London, on charges of causing congestion and obstruction. trade. However, since the removal of the lane, traffic has worsened as parked cars have replaced the bicycle space. Some councilors have also been accused of choreographing negative statements by businesses, prompting the neighborhood to agree to reconsider the closure.
The recent London ruling and subsequent trial raise new concerns about equity in the fight against pandemic road adaptations. While EU activists are challenging TfL in court in February, these arguments are likely to return as long as these policies target some streets and not others.
“Everyone wants cleaner air and safer streets, “said Ade Alabi, a member of the coalition challenging London’s LTNs. told local newspaper The Hackney Gazette. “What is needed to address traffic hazards is a comprehensive approach, in which all residents are consulted and all roads are considered.”