-
Haven't you heard? They own the road. They will expect infrastructure to take space from other sorry plebs like... pedestrians.
LCC would be better getting in bed with Uber - something that represents the future not the past.
Howard-
LCC would be better getting in bed with Uber - something that represents the future not the past.
I'll take traditional London black cabs over a faceless international corporation, whose aim is ultimately to first erect an oligopoly by driving local operators out of business, and then to abolish drivers altogether, any time.
Self-driving cars are the biggest risk to sustainable transport that's imaginable. Car companies, companies like Uber, and probably others I haven't heard of, want to use them to end public transport, privatising it all to benefit only a few large private operators.
Obviously, that's a very long-term aim but it's already one of the main reason why Uber is backed up by venture capital in a similar way to Amazon and other evil companies like that.
Oliver Schick
The trouble is that if they've agreed that the best way to work with cyclists is to support cycling infrastructure then how are they expecting this to happen without existing road space being used.
However, it's a bit of a strange article from the LCC as they attribute a lot of things to the LTDA (e.g. Steve McNamara of the LTDA explained that the organisation didn’t oppose cycle tracks) without any reference to what was actually said. Without that, it's not clear whether the LCC are misinterpreting the LTDA or the LTDA are going back on what they previously agreed.
I agree re: the modal filtering, pretty much the only point of those roads at the moment are for rat-running to avoid Euston Road (admittedly Euston Road is screwed so that's hardly surprising).