Westminster Council's Stance on Oxford Street Cyclists Sparks Controversy Amidst Pre-Existing Cycle Route Plans

Westminster Council is facing scrutiny for its claim of not knowing where cyclists should go after Oxford Street's recent pedestrianization. This declaration has been met with significant criticism, particularly from former council members who have highlighted that comprehensive, funded plans for alternative cycle routes were already in place. The controversy underscores a broader debate about the council's preparedness and its consistent opposition to the pedestrianization initiative, which has now left cyclists in a precarious position without clear, safe alternatives.

The pedestrianization of Oxford Street, a major London thoroughfare, has been a contentious issue. While the Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL) pushed for the car-free transformation, Westminster Council had long expressed reservations. Following the street's conversion, reports emerged of cyclists still using the pedestrianized zone, leading to concerns about potential collisions. Tim Barnes, the deputy leader of Westminster Council, voiced these worries, stating that it was "only a matter of time" before accidents between cyclists and pedestrians became frequent. He further expressed bewilderment about where the volume of bicycle traffic could be safely redirected, emphasizing the loss of Oxford Street as a primary east-west route for all modes of transport.

However, these statements have been sharply rebuked by Max Sullivan, a former Labour councillor and Westminster Council's Cabinet member for streets. Sullivan revealed that during the Labour administration, prior to the Conservative party regaining control in May's local elections, detailed plans for alternative cycle routes were not only devised but also received financial backing. These plans included proposals for a cycleway along New Cavendish Street, leveraging its connections to Cycleway 27 and Hyde Park. TfL had even committed substantial funding, totaling over £1.3 million, to support Westminster City Council's cycleway expansion program. Sullivan publicly challenged the current council on how these allocated funds would be utilized, or if they would be spent at all.

The London Cycling Campaign has also weighed in, welcoming the pedestrianization of Oxford Street but strongly criticizing Westminster Council for its perceived inaction in establishing high-quality parallel cycle routes. The organization highlighted that thousands of cyclists previously used Oxford Street daily, and these individuals urgently require safe alternative pathways. In response to the lack of official infrastructure, some dockless e-bike hire companies have implemented geo-fencing to prevent their bikes from being used on the newly pedestrianized street. This situation has led to direct action from cycling advocates, with a "mass trespass" event organized by Critical Mass seeing hundreds of cyclists ride through Oxford Street to protest the lack of safe cycling infrastructure.

The ongoing dispute highlights a significant disconnect between the council's current stance and its previous plans and responsibilities. The council's history of being at odds with cycling initiatives, including their past criticism of extending cycle lanes and their policy on impounding e-bikes, further fuels the debate. As Oxford Street adapts to its new pedestrian-only status, the urgent need for clear, safe, and viable cycling alternatives remains a critical issue that the council is under increasing pressure to address, especially in light of pre-existing, funded solutions.