|
Post by snoggle on Apr 24, 2017 10:16:02 GMT
A new consultation from TfL. This one is about broad themes and ideas for changing Oxford Street. Seems Snowman was right - this is about the bit between Oxford Circus and Orchard St (west of Oxford Circus). His spy network is clearly very good. Nothing clear yet about buses but strong hints about removing buses plus taxis and cyclists. The possibility of diversion via Wigmore St is floated but not committed to. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/oxford-street/I think the lack of any firm ideas shows that this is proving to be a very very difficult issue for the various bodies to resolve.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Apr 24, 2017 12:57:26 GMT
This part of the proposed Oxford Street pedestrianisation scheme will help the public to see how hard TfL will fight on behalf of bus passengers. Historically Wigmore Street did have buses running down it in the form of the 59/159. Obviously not all the buses that presently use this stretch of Oxford Street could be decanted to Wigmore Street but some should. The 139 would be an obvious candidate, and if the 94 is not affected by Crossrail proposals I would suggest that that would be a candidate too, so as to give an alternative to the Central Line(especially if it is experiencing problems). Those two routes are just illustrations, passenger flows and the reconfigured network might mean other routes would be more suitable. My point is that the price to pay for Oxford Street pedestrianisation is that a reasonable number of buses(not in numbers that would overload the road) should be rerouted via Wigmore Street. All stakeholders should share some of the pain.
If TfL just capitulate/roll over and agree to no buses returning to Wigmore Street then rightly or wrongly I would conclude that the interests of bus passengers are a long way down the list compared to those of other interest groups that TfL seeks to represent.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 24, 2017 13:13:00 GMT
This part of the proposed Oxford Street pedestrianisation scheme will help the public to see how hard TfL will fight on behalf of bus passengers. Historically Wigmore Street did have buses running down it in the form of the 59/159. Obviously not all the buses that presently use this stretch of Oxford Street could be decanted to Wigmore Street but some should. The 139 would be an obvious candidate, and if the 94 is not affected by Crossrail proposals I would suggest that that would be a candidate too, so as to give an alternative to the Central Line(especially if it is experiencing problems). Those two routes are just illustrations, passenger flows and the reconfigured network might mean other routes would be more suitable. My point is that the price to pay for Oxford Street pedestrianisation is that a reasonable number of buses(not in numbers that would overload the road) should be rerouted via Wigmore Street. All stakeholders should share some of the pain. If TfL just capitulate/roll over and agree to no buses returning to Wigmore Street then rightly or wrongly I would conclude that the interests of bus passengers are a long way down the list compared to those of other interest groups that TfL seeks to represent. I'm very sceptical that Wigmore Street will be used for any buses - residents will take priority as per usual as do cyclists who currently use that route to cycle east to west. As soon as the cycling community get wind of re-routing the 'big red killing boxes' along there, it will dead in the water. Even night buses running along there won't happen because residents will moan about noise forgetting the fact they live in the centre of a capital city not rural Surrey. The needs & concerns will be ignored as it has once too often in previous consultations and we will end up with a shoddy and half baked network in Central London tailored for pedestrians, locals who don't use buses or any public transport & cyclists rather than the very people they serve - bus passengers.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 24, 2017 13:28:21 GMT
This part of the proposed Oxford Street pedestrianisation scheme will help the public to see how hard TfL will fight on behalf of bus passengers. Historically Wigmore Street did have buses running down it in the form of the 59/159. Obviously not all the buses that presently use this stretch of Oxford Street could be decanted to Wigmore Street but some should. The 139 would be an obvious candidate, and if the 94 is not affected by Crossrail proposals I would suggest that that would be a candidate too, so as to give an alternative to the Central Line(especially if it is experiencing problems). Those two routes are just illustrations, passenger flows and the reconfigured network might mean other routes would be more suitable. My point is that the price to pay for Oxford Street pedestrianisation is that a reasonable number of buses(not in numbers that would overload the road) should be rerouted via Wigmore Street. All stakeholders should share some of the pain. If TfL just capitulate/roll over and agree to no buses returning to Wigmore Street then rightly or wrongly I would conclude that the interests of bus passengers are a long way down the list compared to those of other interest groups that TfL seeks to represent. I think one route could be run via Wigmore Street and the 139 seems a reasonable option.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 24, 2017 14:45:39 GMT
This part of the proposed Oxford Street pedestrianisation scheme will help the public to see how hard TfL will fight on behalf of bus passengers. Historically Wigmore Street did have buses running down it in the form of the 59/159. Obviously not all the buses that presently use this stretch of Oxford Street could be decanted to Wigmore Street but some should. The 139 would be an obvious candidate, and if the 94 is not affected by Crossrail proposals I would suggest that that would be a candidate too, so as to give an alternative to the Central Line(especially if it is experiencing problems). Those two routes are just illustrations, passenger flows and the reconfigured network might mean other routes would be more suitable. My point is that the price to pay for Oxford Street pedestrianisation is that a reasonable number of buses(not in numbers that would overload the road) should be rerouted via Wigmore Street. All stakeholders should share some of the pain. If TfL just capitulate/roll over and agree to no buses returning to Wigmore Street then rightly or wrongly I would conclude that the interests of bus passengers are a long way down the list compared to those of other interest groups that TfL seeks to represent. And why do you imagine this tentative first round of consultation mentions the use of Wigmore St? To guarantee an incendiary response from local residents, businesses, the taxi trade, delivery firms and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. As vjaska says this means there will be zero chance of buses going that way because the local councillors will be far too terrified of losing the votes of residents. You need only look at the way WCC backed off on a lot of the traffic restraint measures on the Baker St gyratory removal plans to see the influence of the locals. It's all about money, influence and being able to pull strings to get your voice heard. The same tactic has been used to suggest the banning of taxis and cycles from Oxford St - guaranteed to generate an angry response now so that City Hall and TfL can judge the weight of opposition. This stuff really is from the "Infant School book of Politics". The needs of bus passengers are a long way down the list already. Look at how the consultation contrasts 41% of arrivals by bus with 56% being pedestrians using the area. Not comparable facts but presented in a way to suggest they are and which makes it very clear which one City Hall favours - yep pedestrians. Pardon my cynicism but this is all rather childish after years of debating the issue behind closed doors. The key parties - WCC, TfL and City Hall - must know what the concerns are and almost certainly have their own positions well defined and agreed but they just won't publish them *yet*.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Apr 24, 2017 15:48:23 GMT
This part of the proposed Oxford Street pedestrianisation scheme will help the public to see how hard TfL will fight on behalf of bus passengers. Historically Wigmore Street did have buses running down it in the form of the 59/159. Obviously not all the buses that presently use this stretch of Oxford Street could be decanted to Wigmore Street but some should. The 139 would be an obvious candidate, and if the 94 is not affected by Crossrail proposals I would suggest that that would be a candidate too, so as to give an alternative to the Central Line(especially if it is experiencing problems). Those two routes are just illustrations, passenger flows and the reconfigured network might mean other routes would be more suitable. My point is that the price to pay for Oxford Street pedestrianisation is that a reasonable number of buses(not in numbers that would overload the road) should be rerouted via Wigmore Street. All stakeholders should share some of the pain. If TfL just capitulate/roll over and agree to no buses returning to Wigmore Street then rightly or wrongly I would conclude that the interests of bus passengers are a long way down the list compared to those of other interest groups that TfL seeks to represent. I'm very sceptical that Wigmore Street will be used for any buses - residents will take priority as per usual as do cyclists who currently use that route to cycle east to west. As soon as the cycling community get wind of re-routing the 'big red killing boxes' along there, it will dead in the water. Even night buses running along there won't happen because residents will moan about noise forgetting the fact they live in the centre of a capital city not rural Surrey. The needs & concerns will be ignored as it has once too often in previous consultations and we will end up with a shoddy and half baked network in Central London tailored for pedestrians, locals who don't use buses or any public transport & cyclists rather than the very people they serve - bus passengers. I fear that you are right. At present there does not seem to be any effective voice that speaks on the behalf of bus passengers. Very sad!
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Apr 24, 2017 16:05:51 GMT
This part of the proposed Oxford Street pedestrianisation scheme will help the public to see how hard TfL will fight on behalf of bus passengers. Historically Wigmore Street did have buses running down it in the form of the 59/159. Obviously not all the buses that presently use this stretch of Oxford Street could be decanted to Wigmore Street but some should. The 139 would be an obvious candidate, and if the 94 is not affected by Crossrail proposals I would suggest that that would be a candidate too, so as to give an alternative to the Central Line(especially if it is experiencing problems). Those two routes are just illustrations, passenger flows and the reconfigured network might mean other routes would be more suitable. My point is that the price to pay for Oxford Street pedestrianisation is that a reasonable number of buses(not in numbers that would overload the road) should be rerouted via Wigmore Street. All stakeholders should share some of the pain. If TfL just capitulate/roll over and agree to no buses returning to Wigmore Street then rightly or wrongly I would conclude that the interests of bus passengers are a long way down the list compared to those of other interest groups that TfL seeks to represent. And why do you imagine this tentative first round of consultation mentions the use of Wigmore St? To guarantee an incendiary response from local residents, businesses, the taxi trade, delivery firms and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. As vjaska says this means there will be zero chance of buses going that way because the local councillors will be far too terrified of losing the votes of residents. You need only look at the way WCC backed off on a lot of the traffic restraint measures on the Baker St gyratory removal plans to see the influence of the locals. It's all about money, influence and being able to pull strings to get your voice heard. The same tactic has been used to suggest the banning of taxis and cycles from Oxford St - guaranteed to generate an angry response now so that City Hall and TfL can judge the weight of opposition. This stuff really is from the "Infant School book of Politics". The needs of bus passengers are a long way down the list already. Look at how the consultation contrasts 41% of arrivals by bus with 56% being pedestrians using the area. Not comparable facts but presented in a way to suggest they are and which makes it very clear which one City Hall favours - yep pedestrians. Pardon my cynicism but this is all rather childish after years of debating the issue behind closed doors. The key parties - WCC, TfL and City Hall - must know what the concerns are and almost certainly have their own positions well defined and agreed but they just won't publish them *yet*. One of the problems in 2017 is that TfL has burgeoned to become such a large organisation trying to satisfy the interests of various groups, some of whom are extremely vocal. Things were much easier in the days of the former London Transport when they jealously protected bus and tube interests. They did not always get their way but at least they would vigorously fight their corner. If councils proposed one way schemes or changes to road layouts, the former Planning and Liaison Department would soon be entering into correspondence about the disbenefits to passengers and negative effects on operating costs. Many a time LTs case was rejected but at least they did not just roll over. I think your analysis is spot on. The way things are going with the planned drastic filleting of Central London bus services maybe the old 'flying polo mint' logo used by the former London Country Bus Services could be revived and become the new symbol for London Buses in 2017, as those in authority seem determined to create a big hole in the centre of the bus network.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 24, 2017 16:55:46 GMT
And why do you imagine this tentative first round of consultation mentions the use of Wigmore St? To guarantee an incendiary response from local residents, businesses, the taxi trade, delivery firms and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. As vjaska says this means there will be zero chance of buses going that way because the local councillors will be far too terrified of losing the votes of residents. You need only look at the way WCC backed off on a lot of the traffic restraint measures on the Baker St gyratory removal plans to see the influence of the locals. It's all about money, influence and being able to pull strings to get your voice heard. The same tactic has been used to suggest the banning of taxis and cycles from Oxford St - guaranteed to generate an angry response now so that City Hall and TfL can judge the weight of opposition. This stuff really is from the "Infant School book of Politics". The needs of bus passengers are a long way down the list already. Look at how the consultation contrasts 41% of arrivals by bus with 56% being pedestrians using the area. Not comparable facts but presented in a way to suggest they are and which makes it very clear which one City Hall favours - yep pedestrians. Pardon my cynicism but this is all rather childish after years of debating the issue behind closed doors. The key parties - WCC, TfL and City Hall - must know what the concerns are and almost certainly have their own positions well defined and agreed but they just won't publish them *yet*. One of the problems in 2017 is that TfL has burgeoned to become such a large organisation trying to satisfy the interests of various groups, some of whom are extremely vocal. Things were much easier in the days of the former London Transport when they jealously protected bus and tube interests. They did not always get their way but at least they would vigorously fight their corner. If councils proposed one way schemes or changes to road layouts, the former Planning and Liaison Department would soon be entering into correspondence about the disbenefits to passengers and negative effects on operating costs. Many a time LTs case was rejected but at least they did not just roll over. I think your analysis is spot on. The way things are going with the planned drastic filleting of Central London bus services maybe the old 'flying polo mint' logo used by the former London Country Bus Services could be revived and become the new symbol for London Buses in 2017, as those in authority seem determined to create a big hole in the centre of the bus network. Totally agree with all of This, almost feels as if someone has instructed TfL staff not to put much energy into this as it is a lost cause, and with budget constraints would be better fighting for other schemes where may get a chance of improving something. The current inability to demonstrate the advantages of the bus in a shopping district was ineptly shown at Twickenham, (where bus stops were banished to 4 corners of area so interchanges require long walks). This feels like a repeat of bus stops are near bottom of the requirements. As TCR and Bond St stations each will have 2 entrances, effectively got 4 fully accessible places so the bus being accessible is no longer a reason to have any buses in area. If you can't walk far, Oxford St is probably not first choice for a shopping district.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 24, 2017 21:27:06 GMT
If you can't walk far, Oxford St is probably not first choice for a shopping district. Disagree a bit. If you want to shop in 2 or 3 big name stores then you can currently almost certainly get a bus to or from the front door of all of them. Better still you can get a bus *between* some of the big shops even if it is only 1 stop down the road e.g. Selfridges to John Lewis. Loads of people, myself included, used to hop 1-2 stops along Oxford St. The constant refrain of people asking "does this bus go to Marble Arch / Oxford Circus / Selfridges / TCR". When it's all pedestrianised you won't be able to do this so why, if you're a bit wobbly on your pins, would you ever go back to Oxford St if you have no means of getting between stores. If WCC / TfL end up having to provide a fleet of electric trikes or buggies to transport people up and down why on earth bother? More cost, more faff when we already have a means of accessible transport that operates 24/7 364 days a year. You can forget about the tube or Crossrail for a hop down Oxford St. It'll take a fit person 5-10 mins from street to platform at each end, an older person going slowly and waiting for / finding lifts will probably take 3 to 4 times longer than a fit person given the massive scale of the stations and limited positions for lift shafts. Who in their right mind is going to waste 20-30 mins to then ride a train for 2-3 mins and then have another 20 mins to exit? No one. People will do it once and then say "bleep this for a game of soldiers" and never do it again. The whole thing is just bonkers. I can't even begin to imagine the sort of utter claptrap that must be being said in the stakeholder meetings about pedestrianising Oxford St. Probably bad enough for me to replicate that sketch where someone opens the window in a highrise office block and steps out of the window to leave the meeting.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 24, 2017 21:30:12 GMT
Give it a few years, and I fear it won't just be Oxford Street without buses. Regent Street from Oxo to Piccadilly Circus, Shaftesbury Avenue between Piccadilly and Cambridge Circuses, all those may well go pedestrian only, I feel. The bus has zero influential friends in Central London, and lots of highly influential enemies. Sad, but true.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Apr 24, 2017 21:54:20 GMT
Give it a few years, and I fear it won't just be Oxford Street without buses. Regent Street from Oxo to Piccadilly Circus, Shaftesbury Avenue between Piccadilly and Cambridge Circuses, all those may well go pedestrian only, I feel. The bus has zero influential friends in Central London, and lots of highly influential enemies. Sad, but true. At present I think that is a bit far fetched. These a definitely highly used pedestrian routes but I think Regent Street in particular could be narrowed first before pedestrianisation is considered. But how knows in the late 2020/early 2030s what you have suggested maybe something that will be considered.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 24, 2017 22:16:36 GMT
Give it a few years, and I fear it won't just be Oxford Street without buses. Regent Street from Oxo to Piccadilly Circus, Shaftesbury Avenue between Piccadilly and Cambridge Circuses, all those may well go pedestrian only, I feel. The bus has zero influential friends in Central London, and lots of highly influential enemies. Sad, but true. Possibly, the area would be far better suited to tram operation although obviously that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. The pedestrianisation of Oxford Street has been inevitable for years and it would seem sensible to combine it with the opening of Crossrail.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 24, 2017 23:12:07 GMT
Give it a few years, and I fear it won't just be Oxford Street without buses. Regent Street from Oxo to Piccadilly Circus, Shaftesbury Avenue between Piccadilly and Cambridge Circuses, all those may well go pedestrian only, I feel. The bus has zero influential friends in Central London, and lots of highly influential enemies. Sad, but true. Possibly, the area would be far better suited to tram operation although obviously that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. The pedestrianisation of Oxford Street has been inevitable for years and it would seem sensible to combine it with the opening of Crossrail. You may well be right, but I don't think we are anywhere near that yet. I am not convinced that everyone lines up against the bus, I suspect it is the sheer quantity of buses, particularly ones that look empty, rather than all buses that cause the biggest complaints. Ultimately buses bring in shoppers and business, so there will be a point where a reduced number of buses will be seen to be a reasonable compromise. In some ways the central London changes of 1992 have caused a lot of unintended consequences by filling roads such as Oxford Street with many more buses.
I am surprised that OSW (Oxford Street West - Oxford Circus to Orchard Street) is being done first. Perhaps following the Central London changes and given the lack of stand space at Tottenham Court Road, this section might be considered easier. Here's a quick starter for ten; bus 7 can be terminated at Marble Arch, the 113 at Portman Square, the 10 can be diverted via Shaftesbury Avenue and Piccadilly, the 94 is being re-structured anyway, bus 159 can have the temporary curtailment to Oxford Circus made permanent, whilst bus 22 may need a diversion. Buses 139 and 390 could be the two routes going down Wigmore Street, which just leaves the 98 and that could go down Wigmore Street if there's capacity or terminate at Marble Arch.
I haven't yet read the proposals fully, so I may change my mind! I'll say some more once I have had a chance to properly review the consultation.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 24, 2017 23:32:31 GMT
Give it a few years, and I fear it won't just be Oxford Street without buses. Regent Street from Oxo to Piccadilly Circus, Shaftesbury Avenue between Piccadilly and Cambridge Circuses, all those may well go pedestrian only, I feel. The bus has zero influential friends in Central London, and lots of highly influential enemies. Sad, but true. Regent St is the difficult one. If Crossrail2 is given the go ahead then I can see a lot of pressure to de-bus Shaftesbury Avenue during the construction phase to avoid a repeat of the Oxford St / TCR shambles that lasted years with Crossrail. Once CR2 is open then given it will have a major entrance on Shaftesbury Avenue we are back to the demands for full pedestrianisation "because the pavements won't cope with the crowds". Then you get full scale pedestrianisation from North of Oxford St right down to Trafalgar Square. Heaven help all the businesses in the area but Soho is being destroyed now anyway and Chinatown will follow within the next 20 years as land prices rise and speculators / developers move in. Just so long as people can make a few million who cares about history, culture, variety and social vitality? (Sorry, but it makes me very cross).
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 25, 2017 5:39:57 GMT
Possibly, the area would be far better suited to tram operation although obviously that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. The pedestrianisation of Oxford Street has been inevitable for years and it would seem sensible to combine it with the opening of Crossrail. You may well be right, but I don't think we are anywhere near that yet. I am not convinced that everyone lines up against the bus, I suspect it is the sheer quantity of buses, particularly ones that look empty, rather than all buses that cause the biggest complaints. Ultimately buses bring in shoppers and business, so there will be a point where a reduced number of buses will be seen to be a reasonable compromise. In some ways the central London changes of 1992 have caused a lot of unintended consequences by filling roads such as Oxford Street with many more buses.
I am surprised that OSW (Oxford Street West - Oxford Circus to Orchard Street) is being done first. Perhaps following the Central London changes and given the lack of stand space at Tottenham Court Road, this section might be considered easier. Here's a quick starter for ten; bus 7 can be terminated at Marble Arch, the 113 at Portman Square, the 10 can be diverted via Shaftesbury Avenue and Piccadilly, the 94 is being re-structured anyway, bus 159 can have the temporary curtailment to Oxford Circus made permanent, whilst bus 22 may need a diversion. Buses 139 and 390 could be the two routes going down Wigmore Street, which just leaves the 98 and that could go down Wigmore Street if there's capacity or terminate at Marble Arch.
I haven't yet read the proposals fully, so I may change my mind! I'll say some more once I have had a chance to properly review the consultation.
I think you've hit the nail on the head about the 1992 Central London changes causing many of the current problems. Hopefully one or two routes will be able to use Wigmore Street although I can understand concerns about the road becoming clogged up with buses.
|
|