In this article
As London remodels its streets to accommodate more cyclists and pedestrians during the coronavirus pandemic, it’s facing a new kind of hurdle: legal challenges.
A London court ruled Jan. 20 that barring taxis from a central London street was unlawful. In a win for several taxi trade groups who filed the challenge, Justice Beverley Lang also found that city guidance suggesting local boroughs ban taxis on some streets failed to sufficiently take into account “the needs of people with protected characteristics, including the elderly or disabled.”
Another legal challenge that could have even broader implications follows closely on its heels: In February, activist groups from five London boroughs 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 have negatively impacted vulnerable groups such as the elderly and their caretakers, or poorer people living close to major arteries.
Together, these lawsuits raise new equity questions about all of London’s pandemic-era Streetspace program. This overhaul of the city’s road system has temporarily remodeled more than 40 major streets to widen sidewalks and increase safe lanes for cycling, and accelerated the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs): community hubs where, in a bid to reduce pollution and encourage active travel, car access (including taxis) is blocked or restricted.
Concerns about the disproportionate impacts of these community hubs have been building for some time. London clean air activist Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, whose daughter Ella’s death from asthma at age 9 was found to have beencaused in part by pollution, has argued that the LTNs actually worsen conditions for poorer Londoners. They have done so, said Kissi-Debrah, by displacing more traffic away from desirable village-like areas into the more affordable areas around major roads where people on lower incomes are more likely to live. The activists challenging London’s LTNs in court are relying on similar arguments, alleging that the traffic and air pollution impacts on vulnerable groups of these plans were not sufficiently considered.
In the recent court decision, the groups filing the lawsuit represented drivers of London’s iconic black cabs. The United Trade Action Group and Licensed Taxi Drivers Association said that by including taxis in its restrictions on cars, TfL had not taken into account taxis’ legally recognized status as public transport.
The challenge centered on the street of Bishopsgate, a major route leading into London’s financial district and the location of Liverpool Street Station, a transit hub.
Plans inaugurated this summer limited access to the street only to buses and bicycles between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays, with sidewalks widened and improved. Tweets from the mayor’s walking and cycling commissioner suggested taxis were initially also going to be allowed access. But they were excluded from the final plan, with TfL research cited in the court case suggesting that taxis constituted as much as 43% of vehicles on the road during the morning peak — an estimate contested by the taxi groups. TfL’s closures still permit some access to the street via side streets — including the forecourt of Liverpool Street Station — but it meant that taxis needed to take complicated, higher-cost routes and could not guarantee doorstep drop-offs.
The court’s verdict pulls no punches in its comments on TfL. The street space changes, which Justice Lang called “radical,” were “symptomatic of an ill-considered response which sought to take advantage of the pandemic to push through, on an emergency basis without consultation,” she wrote in her ruling. The justification for the adaptations — “that after lockdown, because of the limited public transport capacity, there would be a major increase in pedestrians and cyclists,” — was “mere conjecture,” Justice Lang said.
According to a statement from aTfL spokesperson, the agency is “disappointed with the judgement” and plans to appeal. “Temporary Streetspace schemes are enabling safer essential journeys during this exceptionally challenging time and are vital to ensuring that increased car traffic does not threaten London’s recovery from coronavirus.”
Simon Still with the London Cycling Campaigndescribed the lawsuit as “the latest in a long history of the taxi industry opposing any scheme that seeks to cut car use and boost walking and cycling” in a statement. Reducing car traffic is “in the best interests of Londoners, including the elderly and disabled,” he wrote.
London is one of a number of cities to face court challenges over their street reconfigurations. In 2020, Berlin underwent a court battle over itstemporary cycle lanes — with courts ruling, as they did in London, that the street changes were unlawful because an insufficient case had been made for their necessity. As in London, no actual changes have been required of the city until the appeal is heard later this year. And in 2018, a French court ruled that Paris’s closure to cars of the Seine’s Lower Quays was illegal – partly because, yet again, the court said that some claims over pollution management made in the project’s impact assessment were inaccurate. The pedestrianization remained in place after the city made an argument for it on (easier to sustain) heritage grounds.
Similar concerns questioning the efficacy of these street restrictions have been raised in political battles in London. In December 2020, the Conservative-run borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which covers Britain’s wealthiest communities, removed a temporary cycle lane from Kensington High Street, a major West London shopping street, after allegations that it was causing congestion and hampering trade. Since the lane’s removal, however, traffic has actually worsened as parked cars have replaced cycle space. Some councillors have also been accused of choreographing negative statements from businesses, prompting the borough to agree to reconsider the closure.
London’s recent court ruling and the upcoming lawsuit raise new equity concerns in the fight over pandemic road adaptations. As community activists challenge TfL in court this February, these arguments are likely to come to the fore again so long as these policies target some streets and not others.
“Everyone wants cleaner air and safer streets,” Ade Alabi, a campaigner who is part of the coalition challenging London’s LTNs, told local newspaper the Hackney Gazette. “What is needed to tackle traffic hazards is a comprehensive approach, in which all residents are consulted and all roads are considered.”
Source: Read Full Article