PUBLIC INQUIRY ON THE TORRINGTON PLACE-TAVISTOCK PLACE TRIAL - BLOOMSBURY RESIDENTS’ ACTION GROUP (BRAG) 

STATEMENT OF CASE                                                                             

 

October 2017

Background                            Case Against The Trial                Conclusion and Proofs of Evidence

 

 

 

 

Contents (Summary)

 

 

1.  BACKGROUND, describing local opposition to the trial from pedestrians and cyclists; and the work of Bloomsbury Residents’ Action Group (BRAG) in trying to give local residents a voice and to highlight the adverse impacts of the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) on the community; also the consultation process which had multiple flaws but which the Council continues to rely on as part of its support for the trial being made permanent.

         2. THE CASE AGAINST THE TRIAL namely that:

 

a.  The trial has not met its objectives with regard to safety and pollution

b.  The trial has created multiple adverse impacts, which outweigh any positive impacts, and which the Council is largely not taking into account

c.  There are alternative plans for the area which could achieve the Council’s objectives without such adverse impacts, and these have not been fairly and adequately considered

d.  The Council’s Statement of Case supporting the trial being made permanent is based on many statements which are unsubstantiated, and statements for which the evidence is quite contrary to the assertions, and some incorrect information.

         3.  CONCLUSION

 

Contents (Detailed on separate pages - click on link above)

 

1. BACKGROUND

1.1   The creation of the Torrington Place-Tavistock Place trial

1.2    Some confusion of purpose

1.3    Absence of prior local consultation

1.4    Congestion and pollution caused by the trial totally unprecedented

1.5    Detrimental to quality of life

1.6    Establishment of Bloomsbury Residents’ Action Group (BRAG)

1.7     Local consultation organised by BRAG

1.8     Council consultation

 

2. THE CASE AGAINST THE TRIAL

2.1          Overview

 

2.2          The trial has not met its objectives

2.2.1       Air quality has not generally improved.

2.2.2       The Torrington-Tavistock corridor is not safer for cyclists

2.2.3       Cycling is more dangerous on surrounding streets

2.2.4       No significant decline in pedestrian accidents

2.3         The trial has created multiple adverse impacts

2.3.1      The trial has created multiple adverse impacts: summary

2.3.2      Increased security risks with emergency vehicles being impeded

2.3.3      Longer vehicle journeys now necessitated, thereby increasing the risk of accidents,

               congestion  and pollution

2.3.4      Delayed patient and health care staff journeys between hospital sites, which occur daily

2.3.5      Mobility and access more difficult and more expensive for a particular section of

              pedestrians, including frail, older and disabled people

2.3.6      Threat to the sustainability of the community, by making the practicalities of daily life for

              residents and local businesses more difficult and stressful

 

2.4         There are alternative plans for the area which could achieve the Council’s  objectives                   without such adverse impacts, and these have not been fairly and adequately

               considered

 

2.5         The Council’s Statement of Case supporting the trial being made permanent is based

              on  many statements which are either misleading or unsubstantiated, and statements

              for which  the evidence is quite contrary to the assertions, and also some incorrect

              information

 

4. CONCLUSION

 

        4.1           The Council’s SoC does not provide sound evidence for the trial to be made permanent

 

        4.2           The trail removes a vital westbound route

 

4.3           BRAG proposes that corridor should be reversed to its previous two way traffic but

                 with the modification that, instead of one bidirectional cycle lane, there should be

                 two unidirectional cycle lanes.

 

 5.  PROOFS OF EVIDENCE