Government initiatives to close the streets of London to cars face new challenges in court.
Photographer: Richard Baker / In Pictures
Photographer: Richard Baker / In Pictures
Like London rebuilding its streets to accommodate more cyclists and pedestrians during the coronavirus pandemic, it faces a new kind of hurdle: legal challenges.
A court in London ruled on January 20 that it was illegal to ban taxis from a street in central London. In a win for several taxi companies who submitted the challenge, Justice Beverley Lang also found that city guidance, which suggested that local boroughs ban taxis on some streets, did not sufficiently take into account “the needs of people with protected characteristics, including the elderly or disabled.”
Another legal challenge that could have broader implications follows closely: In February, activist groups from five London boroughs will ask a court to consider destroying programs to create low-traffic neighborhoods. The groups will argue that officials have failed to consult local communities before making decisions to block traffic, which has negatively impacted vulnerable groups such as the elderly and their carers, or poorer people living close to major thoroughfares .
Together, these lawsuits raise new equity questions across London’s pandemic-era Streetspace program. This overhaul of the city’s road network has temporarily renovated more than 40 main streets to widen sidewalks and increase safe lanes for bicycles, and accelerated the introduction of low-traffic neighborhoods (LTNs): neighborhood hubs where, in an effort to reduce pollution and travel , access to the car (including taxis) is blocked or restricted.
Concerns about the disproportionate impact of these community hubs have been ongoing for some time. London clean air activist Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, whose daughter turned out to be Ella’s death from asthma at the age of 9 caused in part by pollution, has argued that the LTNs are actually worsening conditions for poorer Londoners. They have done that, Kissi-Debrah said, by moving more traffic from desirable village-like areas to the more affordable areas around main roads where lower-income people are likely to live. The activists challenging the London LTNs in court rely on similar arguments and argue that the impact of traffic and air pollution on vulnerable groups of these plans has not been sufficiently taken into account.
In the recent court ruling, the groups that brought 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 the car restrictions, TfL had failed to take into account the legally recognized status of taxis as a public transport system.
The challenge focused on Bishopsgate Street, a major route leading to London’s financial district, and the location of Liverpool Street Station, a transit hub.
Plans inaugurated this summer limited street access to only buses and bicycles between 7am and 7pm on weekdays, with sidewalks being widened and improved. Tweets from the mayor of hiking and cycling commissioner proposed taxis would also initially be granted access. But they were excluded from the final plan, with TfL research cited in the lawsuit suggesting that taxis made up as much as 43% of the vehicles on the road during the morning rush hour – an estimate disputed by the taxi groups. The TfL closures still give some street access via side streets – including the forecourt of Liverpool Street Station – but it meant taxis had to take complicated, more expensive routes and couldn’t guarantee drop-offs right outside.
The court verdict does not make sense in his comments on TfL. The street space changes, leaving Justice Lang called ‘radical’, were “symptomatic of an ill-considered response that tried to take advantage of the pandemic to penetrate, to emergencies without consultation”, she wrote in her statement. The justification for the changes – “that after lockdown, due to the limited capacity of public transport, the number of pedestrians and cyclists will increase significantly” – was only a conjecture, Justice Lang said.
According to a statement by A. TfL spokesman, the agency is “disappointed with the verdict” and plans to appeal. “Temporary Streetspace schedules enable safer, essential travel during this exceptionally challenging time and are essential to ensure that increased car traffic does not jeopardize London’s recovery from the coronavirus.”
Simon Still with the London Cycling Campaign described the lawsuit as “the latest in a long history of the taxi industry to oppose any plan to reduce car use and encourage walking and cycling” in a statement. Reducing car traffic is “in the interest of Londoners, including the elderly and disabled,” he wrote.
London is one of several cities facing judicial challenges due to their street reconfiguration. In 2020 Berlin underwent a lawsuit over his temporary cycle lanes – where, as in London, the courts ruled that the street changes were illegal because there were insufficient arguments for their necessity. As in London, no actual city changes are required until the appeal is heard later this year. And in 2018, a French court ruled that the Paris closure for cars from the Seine’s Lower Quays was illegal – in part because, again, the court said some pollution management claims in the project’s impact assessment were inaccurate. The pedestrian zone continued to exist after the city made a case for it on (easier to maintain) heritage grounds.
Similar concerns about the effectiveness of these street restrictions have arisen during political battles in London. In December 2020, the conservative neighborhood of Kensington and Chelsea, which includes Britain’s wealthiest communities, removed a temporary bike path from Kensington High Street, a major west London shopping street, following accusations that it was creating congestion and hindering trade. Since the lane disappeared, traffic has deteriorated because parked cars have replaced the bicycle space. Some city councilors have also been accused of choreographing negative corporate statements, prompting the city to reconsider the closure.
The recent London court ruling and upcoming lawsuit raise new concerns about the fairness in the battle over pandemic road modifications. As community activists take TfL to court in February, these arguments are likely to surface again as long as this policy focuses on 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, the local newspaper told the Hackney Gazette. “What is needed to address traffic risks is a comprehensive approach, involving all residents and considering all roads.”