Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

[edcraw]

Tried to post their statement but it’s too many words!

chowce5382 is going to be raising more money to go to the Supreme Court. Hopefully they don’t get permission for everyone’s sake.

 

[edcraw]

Sofia Sheakh says she’s liable for £10k of the council’s costs. I hope those that encouraged her to go to court fundraise to pay this.

 

[nick]

Removed - EdCraw already tried and failed to C&P the statement

 

[sleaterkinney]

C+P in two?

 

[nick]

well you asked:

Sofia Sheakh
2h ·
STATEMENT RE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGEMENT – Sofia Sheakh
05th April 2022
Dear friends - and all those who have supported our legal case, it is with a heavy heart that I must tell you that we have lost our appeal against Lambeth Labour for their failings re Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) relating to the implementation of discriminatory Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs).
Please disseminate my statement far and wide on social media because the voices of the disabled community must be heard above the cycle lobby, selfish affluent residents and those who purport to govern us.
The Appeal Court judges broadly agreed with Justice Kerr’s High Court judgement that Covid-19 emergency laws allowed the Council to carry out a poor (barely any) assessment of the likely impact on people with disabilities when implementing LTN Experimental Traffic Orders (which can run for up to 18 months) as, in the context of the Pandemic, it was acceptable for EQIAs to be reviewed on a rolling basis. The courts did not consider that residents had already endured 6 months of Temporary Traffic Orders prior to the ETO. Furthermore, the judges agreed that the Council’s delegated decision maker did not even have to personally ‘look at’ or ‘review’ the Equality Impact Assessments (EqIA) himself but could rely on others to undertake this important role on his behalf.
The fact that the Court of Appeal deliberated for almost 3 months shows that this was not a straight forward case and I am afraid that the judgment has grave consequences for all disabled people and others affected by LTNs, as it effectively means Councils can, depending on context and circumstances, put in roadblocks at any time, saying that they are experimental, carry out a basic EQIA, which they can amend as they go along and hold a ‘consultation’ at a later date.
Our barrister has said that ‘they have effectively reduced PSED to zero’ and would like us to take our appeal to the Supreme Court We must first seek permission for this, which we will do as it is a matter of national importance. However, if we are granted permission we will need further community funds, so it is for you all to decide. It may need to be a nationwide campaign.
Many of you will know that I only took legal action out of sheer desperation when I realised that the Council was not remotely interested in making any adjustments/mitigations for people with limited mobility and long-term health conditions. As you may remember, the initial focus of the LTNs was to get everyone riding bikes, even those with severe disabilities. The stress of the last year has taken its toll on my mental health, particularly as I have had to make several aspects of my personal life public and thanks to the Railton LTN, I continuously get caught in traffic wherever I go, which exacerbates my physical symptoms. To compound this, the LTN has effectively made the the road I live on into a huge industrial estate with c180 waste trucks thundering past my home every day, 6 days a week, and industrial vehicles idling outside my home, , all with their associated noise, dust and vibration
Lambeth Council have won the legal battle (for now), but the fact they chose to fight this case at all, against me, a disabled Covid coma survivor with a chronic lung condition, and extremely limited mobility shows how morally bankrupt Lambeth Labour leadership has become. I am now liable for
the Council’s legal costs of £10,000, and although this is a lot of money to you and I it is a paltry sum to the Council who have made over £7 million in LTN PCN fines since 2020!
The Council recently announced LTN ‘dispensations’ for Blue Badge holders - we are now allowed to choose a SINGLE roadblock (in the whole of Lambeth) that we would like to drive through, and accessible taxis are allowed through bus gates only. Councillors and officers must think we live very small lives but then if they really wanted the best for the whole community, they would have taken the concerns of people with mobility impairments (not all of whom have Blue Badges) seriously back in 2020 when the first implemented the scheme
Instead of talking to wide and representative groups of residents and taking advice from a range of disability charities, the Council sought out the views of LTN activists using the Climate Emergency and Pandemic, as a convenient political cover whilst campaigning for the streets they live on to be made ‘no through roads’. I do not believe that it is any coincidence that, at the time of an FOI request in 2020, 16 Councillors (including the then Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council and the Mayor) were living in LTNs or proposed LTNs.........

 

[nick]

...............
LTNs are not about the Climate Emergency at all - how could they be when 1000s of vehicles are re-routed onto surrounding roads every single day and each driver has to drive more miles, burn more fuel and emit more CO2 whilst navigating their way around the roadblocks?
LTNs have compounded the misery of the Pandemic for many and over er the last 20 months, anyone raising concerns about LTNs have been demonised by campaigners and dismissed by Councillors. Many campaigners and prominent LTN beneficiaries have been exposed for racist, misogynistic, and anti-Islamic tweets on social media, and a number have resigned as a result of the views they held.
Labour run Lambeth Council first introduced Temporary Traffic Orders (TTOs) in April 2020 with less than 7 days notice to residents, saying it was to enable ‘social distancing’ during a pandemic. Our barrister has said these had no legal basis whatsoever but at the time residents did not have the legal know-how to challenge them, and everyone was distracted by Covid. They clearly exploited this situation. They then slowly started converting these TTOs into Emergency Traffic Orders (ETOs). These revised Traffic Orders stated that LTNs are more important than individual human rights.
The Council admitted in the High Court that Oval Triangle LTN was implemented illegally. With great regret we did not challenge this LTN in the 6-week statutory period due to community financial concerns, so we could not ask the court to remove it. If we had done so, the Oval LTN would have been quashed in June 2021. The Council also quietly introduced the Tulse Hill LTN on 31st December 2021 – without advertising it as required by statutory law and without properly notifying residents and allowing people to incur additional fines as a result. They also did not notify the court or the legal teams, so we were out of time to challenge this.
Sadly, this is typical of Lambeth Labour’s contemptuous behaviour to residents over the last four years. The gloating of some Lambeth Cllrs across social media after their initial high court victory over me, last year was extremely upsetting.
The Council has manipulated LTN consultation results, removing 1000s of (negative) responses, conflated the responses of people who live in the Railton LTN area with those travelling through,
presumably to obtain a marginally positive outcome – they are refusing to answer FOIs requesting resident only data. Ethnicity data was completely omitted from the Railton LTN survey report (in one of the most ethnically diverse places in the UK) but an FOI response showed a huge over representation of white respondents with people who identified as BAME being generally negative about the scheme.
Ethnic minority traders (especially Windrush businesses in Brixton) suffering because of the ridiculous road closures, have been ignored by the Council, yet they virtue-signal by reviewing racist statues. That is not equality. Public money has been wasted on ventures such as Brixton Pop whilst social housing tenants have been left to suffer for years with issues of mould and leaking roofs. JUST FOUR council houses have been constructed in the last 4 years when 1000 were promised. In short, Lambeth Labour do not represent normal working people, struggling in this most difficult of times.
LTNs, which create a situation where the wealthy can own, and store cars in their gated LTN communities AND continue to pollute the poorest on boundary roads, are part of London Labour’s programme of gentrification (which includes building expensive luxury flats, infilling council estates, neglecting council housing), which will no doubt result in working classes and ethnic minorities being priced out of living in inner London but having to commute in to service the needs of those who can afford to live here. I understand that there is now a campaign against diesel drivers which will mainly impact working class tradespeople, who cannot afford to switch.
Finally, you may ask how I feel about this. Words cannot really express the sadness I feel for all those people who will now have to struggle even more from day to day due to this policy. I have always thought the role of those in power is to support and protect the rights of those who need it the most. I’m afraid that I feel completely and utterly let down by our current Lambeth Labour elected representatives. It is also clear to me now that, in the eyes of the councillors who implemented LTNs, that some people are more equal than others. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your financial backing and heartfelt support, and I am sorry not to bring you better news. We as a community, raised over £50,000 and were granted legal aid to fight this case, that says a huge amount about our values as a community and our willingness to call out societal injustice
It is always hard to fight the establishment, but in the words of the late Bob Crowe. ‘If you fight, you might lose, but if you never fight you will always lose’ I would hope that now everyone can see Lambeth Labour leadership for what they really are.
I hope that this makes Lambeth residents angry and residents across London and other cities angry and cements your understanding that metropolitan Labour Councils generally do not care about those less fortunate or those severely impacted by the Pandemic, and that many (although not all) councillors seem to be in local politics either for self-gain or to implement schemes based on their flawed ideology or both.
My advice to you all is
DO NOT VOTE LABOUR MAY 2022, TOGETHER WE STAND, TOGETHER WE FIGHT Sofia
My solicitor, Anne-Marie Irwin, has issued this statement:
‘We feel that we put forward strong arguments on behalf of Sofia and so we are disappointed by to- day’s judgment but thank the Court of Appeal for hearing the case. This judgment does not change the requirement for public bodies to have due regard to the needs of people with protected character- istics – including disabled people – when making decisions. The impact of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on disabled people remains an important issue in Lambeth and across the country - many individuals and their families have no option but to rely on cars as their primary means of transport and it is vital that their needs are properly considered at every stage of these schemes’
- END-

 

[edcraw]

The statement shows it was never really about people with disabilities- some people are just ideological opposed to any restrictions to cars.

 

[sparkybird]

Their barrister wants them to go to the supreme court. Of course they do!
I find it a bit odd that there's a whole list of stuff 'against' Lambeth in the statement, most of it not related to the consideration of the access needs of disabled people in LTNs (IE the challenge)
Of course One Lambeth and Sophia must be disappointed, but twice they have been found to not have a case.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Their barrister wants them to go to the supreme court. Of course they do!
I find it a bit odd that there's a whole list of stuff 'against' Lambeth in the statement, most of it not related to the consideration of the access needs of disabled people in LTNs (IE the challenge)
Of course One Lambeth and Sophia must be disappointed, but twice they have been found to not have a case.

They never had a case though. And it’s our council tax also that’s been wasted on this, it was spurious from the off.

 

[thebackrow]

One Lambeth's statement on their FB group seems to think the judgement effectively 'reduces PSED to zero' so imagine that's what they are going on

That wasn’t the grounds they appealed on. The appeal was over whether PSED could be considered on a continuous/rolling basis, and the judgement seems unequivocal that it can.

..We do not accept the argument put forward by Mr Buley(for 1L). It seems to us to be based on a false understanding of the public sector equality duty.

72 Our conclusion that the judge’s analysis (in the original case) was sound is not undone by the fact that the equality impact assessments for the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods were yet to be finalised. That they were only in draft reflects the reality that they were, as was appropriate, a work in progress. The council’s Transport Strategy, which embraced the concept of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, had itself been the subject of a broadly framed equality impact assessment, which did not pre-empt the assessment for the experimental traffic orders later proposed. The fact that an equality impact assessment had not yet been carried out for each of the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods under consideration on 9 October 2020 does not prevent a conclusion that the council had properly fulfilled the public sector equality duty at that stage

they’ve comprehensively lost now having spent 50k ? of other peoples money.

 

[edcraw]

I sure they would - apparently they’re asking for £2.7k to do so!

 

[BigTom]

Just thought I'd post a bit of comic relief from one of Birmingham's LTNs, where I live.

As part of the LTN one small side road off the high street, York Road, has been pedestrianised.

The local anti LTN campaigners are holding a protest... Guess what convenient car free space they have chosen to hold it in...

I'm not on Facebook but I'm sure the irony of this is being pointed out to them... I might have a look on Twitter...

 

[thebackrow]

Have to think the QC is taking them for mugs with those probabilities. Just enough to keep them feeding cash, but not enough they look like a liar when they inevitably lose.

More to the point, since they’d presumably still only be looking at the narrow issue of rolling assessments of equality (which seems like a perfectly sensible approach as a lay person), I still can’t see what they hope to achieve. Even if they won at Supreme Court it wouldn’t change council strategy or lead to any of the LTNs being removed.

 

[edcraw]

I'm sure any QC would love to have a case to take to the Supreme Court, especially if someone's paying them to do so. Does seem that what legal advice they're being given is either rather unrealistic or not being communicated to their supporters.

 

[thebackrow]

I'm sure any QC would love to have a case to take to the Supreme Court, especially if someone's paying them to do so. Does seem that what legal advice they're being given is either rather unrealistic or not being communicated to their supporters.

They’ve never been honest with their supporters about the basis of the case or what the end result might be. (Matey refused to discuss it on here).

 

[Winot]

Fees for running SC case noticeably absent from that tweet.

 

[teuchter]

it effectively means Councils can, depending on context and circumstances, put in roadblocks at any time, saying that they are experimental, carry out a basic EQIA, which they can amend as they go along and hold a ‘consultation’ at a later date.
Our barrister has said that ‘they have effectively reduced PSED to zero’

[our barister says] This judgment does not change the requirement for public bodies to have due regard to the needs of people with protected character- istics – including disabled people – when making decisions.

Seems a bit of a contradiction there.

 

[Not a Vet]

Be interesting how it plays out in the local elections. I think a few ward councillors may be in for a battle but I’m not convinced it’s a major voting issue. Much more likely the cost of living crisis and other national issues will be what people will vote on

 

[teuchter]

I wonder if the One Lambeth people will be booking their tickets for this.

Liveable Neighbourhoods 2022 Conference & Exhibition

Hosted by the London Borough of Croydon, this conference will showcase the best examples of political leadership, policy, projects and programmes that are delivering Liveable Neighbourhoods.

www.loveableneighbourhoods.uk

 

[CH1]

The statement shows it was never really about people with disabilities- some people are just ideological opposed to any restrictions to cars.

Well I've got Chronic Pulmonary Obstruction clearly exacerbated by living on a road suffering from increased traffic due to LTN traffic diversion.
I feel confident that when I pop my clogs - based on legal precedent - my nearest and dearest will be able to sue Lambeth Council for maladministration.
Unfortunately this will be of no benefit to me - cast into hell or received into heaven as the case may be.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

If LTNs are moving the traffic around then I’m not sure they are are the best thing for this particular problem. But the thing that gets me about anti LTN motorists who go on about traffic and pollution is that this isn’t ultimately caused my the LTNs, it’s caused by all the cars! Think the congestion is bad? Don’t add to by using your car! The mental hoops I see people jump through to justify their car use yet still complain about such measures is astounding.

Similarly I’ve seen incidents like drivers going across zebra crossings despite people walking across them, motorcyclists using pavements and almost running over children etc. as not blamed on the motorist but the LTNs for causing the frustration. Which suggests people’s standards for drivers’ ability to emotionally regulate are worrying low (and don’t apply to cyclists who have almost been knocked off but that’s a different story).

And yes this isn’t all drivers or journeys, some genuinely do need to drive due to mobility reasons or carrying equipment/large amounts of stuff. But it’s most. Having made a life style decision which adds 10 minutes on to a journey if you take public transport is not a genuine need.

Let’s make sure the blame is directed where it really should go. It’s not LTNs, it’s the majority of car journeys.

And frankly as many people couldn’t even wear a bit of frantic across their face in the midst of a global pandemic, sadly people have shown that they aren’t willing to even slightly put themselves out for the common good unless forced.

 

[CH1]

If LTNs are moving the traffic around then I’m not sure they are are the best thing for this particular problem. But the thing that gets me about anti LTN motorists who go on about traffic and pollution is that this isn’t ultimately caused my the LTNs, it’s caused by all the cars! Think the congestion is bad? Don’t add to by using your car! The mental hoops I see people jump through to justify their car use yet still complain about such measures is astounding.

Similarly I’ve seen incidents like drivers going across zebra crossings despite people walking across them, motorcyclists using pavements and almost running over children etc. as not blamed on the motorist but the LTNs for causing the frustration. Which suggests people’s standards for drivers’ ability to emotionally regulate are worrying low (and don’t apply to cyclists who have almost been knocked off but that’s a different story).

And yes this isn’t all drivers or journeys, some genuinely do need to drive due to mobility reasons or carrying equipment/large amounts of stuff. But it’s most. Having made a life style decision which adds 10 minutes on to a journey if you take public transport is not a genuine need.

Let’s make sure the blame is directed where it really should go. It’s not LTNs, it’s the majority of car journeys.

And frankly as many people couldn’t even wear a bit of frantic across their face in the midst of a global pandemic, sadly people have shown that they aren’t willing to even slightly put themselves out for the common good unless forced.

I don't disagree with you - not least because I don't have a car, have never even learned to drive.
If you want to pigeon hole me, lump me with John Stewart the pubic transport campaigner who since leaving HACAN has taken to tweeting about these local transport issues again.


What is so ghastly about all this LTN stuff and before it the CPZ stuff is it is designed to facilitate car ownership but under strict regulation - in the case of CPZ regulation that affects people who have never had a car.

I have always believed in high quality cheap, even free public transport.
This little clip from Seattle - a place I visited in 1990 and was amazed to find had free buses in the central area. With bus cuts and fare rises due to Covid we are heading in this direction now.

Warning: Seattle’s free-ride zone coming to an end

Metro is ending its downtown Seattle free-ride zone Sept. 29, as part of an extensive service overhaul. The change is expected to cause slowdowns and confusion, while leaving poor people without transportation they depend on.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[thebackrow]

Be interesting how it plays out in the local elections. I think a few ward councillors may be in for a battle but I’m not convinced it’s a major voting issue. Much more likely the cost of living crisis and other national issues will be what people will vote on

Election notices

Formal election notices will be posted here when published.

beta.lambeth.gov.uk

Council election candidate lists are out. Main parties running full lists in every seat. Very few minor party candidates anywhere, no independents. No names I recognise from any of the One Lambeth(s) anywhere but a few that I recognise as keen supporters of active travel in the non-labour lists.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I don't disagree with you - not least because I don't have a car, have never even learned to drive.
If you want to pigeon hole me, lump me with John Stewart the pubic transport campaigner who since leaving HACAN has taken to tweeting about these local transport issues again.

Sorry I wasn’t replying to you specifically/challenging you, this is your lived experience after all and it sounds crap It was more that the issue you raised inspired my post. Which is quite possibly what I’ve wanted to say for some time on a more anti LTN space I frequent but I really can’t cope with then having to angrily defend a position for hours, when ultimately no one is going to change their minds.

Really it’s drivers who don’t genuinely need to drive as much who need to be held accountable, and should hold themselves accountable. I’m not sure how one achieves this though!

 

[thebackrow]

What is so ghastly about all this LTN stuff and before it the CPZ stuff is it is designed to facilitate car ownership but under strict regulation - in the case of CPZ regulation that affects people who have never had a car.

I have always believed in high quality cheap, even free public transport.

It's easy to throw negative comments around like this but have you got any better ideas? We've had a century of private car use being very lightly regulated and controlled and the tax take on motoring has been steadily falling (compared to income/public transport costs etc). Lightly regulated to the extent that car ownership and use is significantly subsidised by non car owner/users in terms of public space taken up by parking, externalities (health impacts through pollution and collisions), cost of providing the road network.

LTNs add a little restriction on the routes that can be driven between places (not where you can drive to as everywhere can still be reached by car), and CPZs place some cost on car storages on public land near your home (and make it harder to park at destinations without some payment). Those are hardly 'strict regulations', they don't substantially change the cost of ownership or use (but increase it slightly). Do you really think it should be free to store a private car on public land?

Personally I'm always wary of anything being completely free as it doesn't encourage efficient use and can lead to a lot of waste. When stuff is free people use it/take it whether they need it or not. But heavily subsidised public transport - absolutely - it should be the cheapest option for a family for most trips in my view. But that has a large cost - so how are you going to raise that and get it past the electorate? 'High Quality' public transport? London might not be the absolute best in the world but it's up there amongst the best in terms of coverage speed and options. Again, how would you make it much better, and pay for that? Much higher taxes or doing less of something else.

Buses outside London are almost universally terrible, but very few bus routes have been cut in the capital, and the anti-cycle lane FOI that was put in showed that the length of bus lane (which prioritises buses over other traffic) has increased in London in the last five years, not shortened.

 

[thebackrow]

Surely exactly what we should be aiming for is to "facilitate car ownership (and use) under strict regulation"

Want to drive a car in the city? It's going to be small (Japanese style city cars?), speed regulated, minimal emission (not some massive 4x4 wankpanzer)
Want to drive a short distance to the shops rather than walk? It's going to be very difficult and expensive.
Want to drive your dog to the park rather than walking it there? you're going to find it very hard (and expensive) to park.

Driving is going to be taxed sufficiently to subsidise public transport.

and then you can make exceptions for 'those that really have no option but to drive' with much easements some of those restrictions for them.

 

[CH1]

It's easy to throw negative comments around like this but have you got any better ideas? We've had a century of private car use being very lightly regulated and controlled and the tax take on motoring has been steadily falling (compared to income/public transport costs etc). Lightly regulated to the extent that car ownership and use is significantly subsidised by non car owner/users in terms of public space taken up by parking, externalities (health impacts through pollution and collisions), cost of providing the road network.

LTNs add a little restriction on the routes that can be driven between places (not where you can drive to as everywhere can still be reached by car), and LTNs place some cost on car storages on public land near your home (and make it harder to park at destinations without some payment). Those are hardly 'strict regulations', they don't substantially change the cost of ownership or use (but increase it slightly).

Personally I'm always wary of anything being completely free as it doesn't encourage efficient use and can lead to a lot of waste. When stuff is free people use it/take it whether they need it or not. But heavily subsidised public transport - absolutely - it should be the cheapest option for a family for most trips in my view. But that has a large cost - so how are you going to raise that and get it past the electorate? 'High Quality' public transport? London might not be the absolute best in the world but it's up there amongst the best in terms of coverage speed and options. Again, how would you make it much better, and pay for that? Much higher taxes or doing less of something else.

No better ideas at the moment.
But it does occur to me that electric vehicles will reduce the tax take on motoring even more - unless we all end up paying a fuel surcharge on our electricity.

Cheap public transport still seems the way to go to me. Ken Livingstone's Fares Fare showed the way until blocked by Bromley Council and Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls.

To be sure the present situation in London is still quite benign public transport-wise. I guess there is one low-hanging fruit yet to be plucked if looking for savings - the so-called Boris Pass. Seems a bit odd that a senior civil servant from Surbiton (say) can travel to work in Whitehall for £.00 if aged 60-66 whereas their cleaner aged 59 or less could pay up to £8.90 each way if travelling at peak times.

In terms of parking cars, I would like to see similar rates imposed to what you would pay in a NCP car park - for parking in residential streets.
And an exemption for deliveries, traders and people doing work on properties.

In my bit of Coldharbour Lane there are people who park vans with the bonnet lid up - pretending to have a fault.
They also sometimes remove their number plates.
I would have such vehicles towed away withoiut mercy!

 

[thebackrow]

No better ideas at the moment.
But it does occur to me that electric vehicles will reduce the tax take on motoring even more - unless we all end up paying a fuel surcharge on our electricity.

Cheap public transport still seems the way to go to me. Ken Livingstone's Fares Fare showed the way until blocked by Bromley Council and Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls.

To be sure the present situation in London is still quite benign public transport-wise. I guess there is one low-hanging fruit yet to be plucked if looking for savings - the so-called Boris Pass. Seems a bit odd that a senior civil servant from Surbiton (say) can travel to work in Whitehall for £.00 if aged 60-66 whereas their cleaner aged 59 or less could pay up to £8.90 each way if travelling at peak times.

In terms of parking cars, I would like to see similar rates imposed to what you would pay in a NCP car park - for parking in residential streets.
And an exemption for deliveries, traders and people doing work on properties.

In my bit of Coldharbour Lane there are people who park vans with the bonnet lid up - pretending to have a fault.
They also sometimes remove their number plates.
I would have such vehicles towed away withoiut mercy!

Agree with you on most of that but I'm not sure how it relates to LTNs and CPZs being 'ghastly'

Electric vehicles mean some sort of per mile tax/road charging must be inevitable in a few years time.

Pretty sure the over 60's free pass is being phased up to the pension age over the next few years as part of the TfL funding agreement. I suspect that the real cost of it means it's not actually worth means testing above that (admin costs > savings) but does seem to give free commuting to paid work for over 60s (though of course being off peak only means thats not much of a problem)

How to pay for cheap public transport is the issue - the national government is already beating Mayor Khan up for the fares freeze in recent years. Higher council tax?

 

[teuchter]

The other week I was up in Inverness, capital of the car dependent scottish highlands, staying with a family with two small kids.

During covid, Inverness put in various road changes including segregated cycle lanes. They were telling me, this allowed them to take the kids to various places by bike (despite being a two car household, they do use bikes for some journeys) which they wouldn't have tried before, and they started doing this quite regularly, as apparently did others.

But Inverness basically removed pretty much everything and the roads are back to what they were pre-covid. So, they don't do those journeys by bike now. This conversation took place as we drove between a nursery located at a town-periphery retail estate with acres of parking, and a similarly spacious car park at the leisure centre/swimming pool, located on the opposite side of town, again on the periphery. There's a newly built bypass road that now lets you do this journey avoiding the town centre. It's been built with the footpaths designated as cycle paths, so a clear run for drivers, and cyclists and pedestrians can fight over the remainder.

There's lots bad about Lambeth council, but I feel quite lucky to live somewhere, where the local authority hasn't just caved in to pressure to revert everything to the status quo, which is what has happened in the majority of the UK.

 

[thebackrow]

I have always believed in high quality cheap, even free public transport.

Personally I'm always wary of anything being completely free as it doesn't encourage efficient use and can lead to a lot of waste.

thinking about this more, 'free at the point of use' is what we have now for car owners. With the sunk cost of the car and fuel in the tank it's 'free' to make the next trip and leads to congestion and delays for people who really need to make trips.

Cheaper or free public transport isn't going to take people out of their cars if that's still the case. And creating more demand isn't going to help - London's public transport is at capacity at peak hours (try getting a tube from Clapham North at rush hour) so making it cheaper or free isn't going to help. In fact, congestion on northern line (as I think I've pointed out before) is why cycle superhighway 7, following the line of the northern line, was one of the first to be built. The cheapest way to create capacity on the tube is to get some of the people who use it now to cycle (and then some that drive might take the tube).