London’s taxi industry has gone to the High Court this week to fight against new street restrictions brought in during the Covid-19 pandemic. The new ‘Streetspace’ road restrictions, introduced in May, encourage people to walk, ride and scoot along designated roads in central London. Such modes of transport encourage exercise, are green and carry less of a risk of contracting Covid-19 than other forms. Temporary cycle lanes and wider pavements are among the changes implemented throughout London during the pandemic. The new traffic restrictions mean Bishopsgate and Gracechurch Street, two busy roads in the City of London, will only be open to buses and cyclists between 7am and 7pm. The move has hit the taxi industry hard, and cab drivers say the scheme is hitting their earnings. The measures have also been criticised by some politicians, as well as groups that represent disabled people, such as Transport for All (TfA). "The Bishopsgate used to be bigger, now they've made it small and narrow. After 7pm, we will not get much fare. There's a restriction. After 10 o'clock, everything is closed," taxi driver Abdul Samad told <em>The National.</em> “I could understand it if London was operating the way it did before the virus arrived, but due to the fact that there’s hardly anyone up here, you can see it’s so much quieter than it would normally be. There’s no point in the restrictions that they’ve imposed,” another cab driver Darren said. The Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA) and United Trade Action Group (UTAG) took the decision in August to challenge both the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and Transport for London (TfL) over its new Streetspace plans. In late September, the taxi industry was granted permission to carry out a judicial review of the Bishopsgate and ‘Streetspace’ road restrictions. Taxi company Cabvision shared its reflections on the two-day court case on Twitter on Friday, claiming that the trade had presented a “sound and comprehensive case” in setting out an area in which cab drivers could operate without limitation. “There is no doubt (in my mind) that a licensee has legitimate expectations and that TfL have interfered with those rights,” it said. “TfL could have 'trialled' with taxis and if taxis took up too much space and compromised the scheme, then TfL would have had evidence to back-up their decision-making.”
