CYCLE LANE MADNESS
GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO STRUGGLE WITH COVID PRIORITIES
In the overall scheme of things during this pandemic, what started out as a matter of seemingly trivial significance has escalated into a major issue - not only in London but in many other parts of the UK.
PHTM readers will recall that we’ve featured Cycle Lane Madness in our last two editions, on the basis that it has snowballed into a major controversy. Last month we revealed that the Transport Minister Grant Shapps had to backtrack somewhat with his and the Prime Minister’s grand Walking and Cycling plan, and try to justify the expenditure of some £250million on the initiative.
The Telegraph got on the bandwagon and had access to Mr Shapps’ letter to local authorities, stating that - in school report card parlance - they’d “have to do better” in order to access further funding for pop-up cycle lanes, widened pavements, Local Traffic Neighbourhoods, School Streets and similar diversions.
The petition instigated by David Tarsh of Tarsh Consultants, calling for the removal of the recent temporary traffic measures that are creating such huge amounts of congestion, has now gained 25,425 signatures and rising. You can sign this petition at any time up until April 2021 at:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/552306
During this past month 14 Conservative MPs have written to Grant Shapps stating that cycle lanes and road restrictions brought in during the pandemic should be scrapped. In a letter to the Minister seen by the Daily Mail, the back- benchers warn that disastrous anti-traffic measures are worsening gridlock and pollution and causing ‘palpable anger’ across the country.
They say the Conservative Party is engaged in a ‘war on the motorist’ and describe the DfT’s coronavirus roads policy as ‘indefensible’. The letter, organised by pressure group FairFuelUK, exposes a mounting Tory revolt over the DfT’s £250million fund for traffic schemes during the pandemic.
Under the controversial policy, councils have used taxpayer cash to turn over vast sections of road to pedestrians and bikes. In some cases, roads have been closed altogether to create ‘low traffic neighbourhoods’ in busy residential areas.
Rather than improving local areas, critics say, the schemes have worsened gridlock and pollution, caused delays for 999 services and hurt businesses which rely on trade from
104
A pop-up cycle lane in Ashford town centre proved controversial
DECEMBER 2020
passing traffic. Astonishingly, some of the most chaotic schemes have been ripped out after as little as 48 hours.
So far the measures are said to have cost £400,000 a day. ONE WAS NOT AMUSED…
In a move likely to ignite fresh anger, Mr Shapps was planning last month to release a further £175million to councils for new road schemes. But in a partial U-turn, as highlighted above, he will say they cannot proceed with schemes unless they can prove they have the support of residents, businesses and the area’s MP.
Motoring groups have spent weeks campaigning against the measures, but the intervention by Tory MPs marks a significant turning point in the row. The MPs’ letter to Mr Shapps, written by Kent-based Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, says: “The extra £250million being spent on these projects is simply a high-priced idealistic formula for even more congestion and the associated increased pollution that comes from resultant slower moving or stationery vehicles.
“This policy is indefensible, with our constituents up in arms at seeing high streets desolated, small businesses ruined, and emergency services impeded. With only four per cent of road journeys by bicycle, the over-emphasis on cycling initiatives and their influence on policy is counterproductive, both economically and politically.”
The letter also has the support of the Road Haulage Association, the Alliance of British Drivers and the Motorcycle Action Group.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
