|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 14, 2016 8:17:56 GMT
The point is though thousands of passengers could be affected indirectly due to the promise or whatever you want to call it, to pedestrianise Oxford Street. Look at where those buses go when they leave Central London.... Straight into Labour strong holds. It's no use saying to residents of Lambeth that the 159 (for example) is being withdrawn from going anywhere near Oxford Street, but hey you can get the Victoria Line instead. Many people use the bus because it's cheaper, and the tube is at capacity. Having said that, one only has to look at the empty top decks of buses going around Trafalgar Square between the peaks to see evidence of over bussing. On the other hand, one can head to Lady Margaret Road in Southall and try their luck boarding a 120 & being lucky enough to find a seat. I would imagine the 159 will still go to Oxford Circus? There are numerous examples of over provision in Central London and inadequate levels of service in suburban areas. I think there's a more than reasonable chance the pedestrianisation of OS will go straight across Oxford Circus, blocking N-S flow up and down Regent Street. That being the case, the 159 won't be able to terminate at Oxford Circus... |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jul 14, 2016 8:23:08 GMT
I heard that there would be a bus review later this year and so not surprised. One thing about pedestrianisation that I am surprised to read, is that there is no plans to use adjacent roads. I am sure that there are 'options' coming and that using adjacent road is one of them, but we wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 14, 2016 8:48:21 GMT
I think there's a more than reasonable chance the pedestrianisation of OS will go straight across Oxford Circus, blocking N-S flow up and down Regent Street. That being the case, the 159 won't be able to terminate at Oxford Circus... A remote possibility could be to reroute the 159 (and other relevant routes) via Green Park and Park Lane to Marble Arch. As for the Oxford Street/Regent Street junction, perhaps they could propose an extra wide pelican crossing so as to leave the Regent Street corridor accessible for through routes like the 88, C2, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 14, 2016 9:11:48 GMT
The point is though thousands of passengers could be affected indirectly due to the promise or whatever you want to call it, to pedestrianise Oxford Street. Look at where those buses go when they leave Central London.... Straight into Labour strong holds. It's no use saying to residents of Lambeth that the 159 (for example) is being withdrawn from going anywhere near Oxford Street, but hey you can get the Victoria Line instead. Many people use the bus because it's cheaper, and the tube is at capacity. Having said that, one only has to look at the empty top decks of buses going around Trafalgar Square between the peaks to see evidence of over bussing. On the other hand, one can head to Lady Margaret Road in Southall and try their luck boarding a 120 & being lucky enough to find a seat. I would imagine the 159 will still go to Oxford Circus? There are numerous examples of over provision in Central London and inadequate levels of service in suburban areas. I would imagine the current stands at Oxford Circus are pretty much full up, wouldn't surprise me if it is cut to Piccadilly Circus. Some through routes can see them being diverted via Portman Square then back onto Regent Street such as the 6, 10, 73, 98, 390.. 137 to Marble Arch, 7 to Paddington, 94 via Green Park ? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2016 9:33:29 GMT
I think there's a more than reasonable chance the pedestrianisation of OS will go straight across Oxford Circus, blocking N-S flow up and down Regent Street. That being the case, the 159 won't be able to terminate at Oxford Circus... The way the phasing of the pedestrianisation was explained I don't think Oxford Circus will be pedestrianised. You can't block Regent St without causing horrendous problems. It was definitely TCR to Oxford Circus east then Oxford Circus west to Selfridges and then the final stretch from Baker St past Gloucester Place to Marble Arch. That last bit has ramifications for all sorts of transport including many coach services. We're concentrating on buses but there is access for taxis, emergency services, deliveries to / from businesses to consider. There was also some limited discussion about access for disabled people and how the facilities offered by buses would be replaced. VS cited Crossrail as being accessible but I still think that's a nonsense in terms on moving along Oxford Circus itself. There was talk of electric buggies or scooters being provided - funded by the shops themselves. There was even the possibility of full pedestrianisation not applying overnight so as to retain night bus access and to ensure some people presence. The place does get pretty quiet overnight and most activity is either pedicabs or people waiting for night buses. If no access is permitted then the place could be deserted overnight with all the risks of attack that that can bring. The removal of Westminster Council's CCTV coverage was cited as a factor here. Coming back to buses I suspect we will see wholesale removal of some routes and others being extended to cover. Here's a theoretical example - C2 withdrawn. 88 withdrawn Clapham Common - Stockwell. Extended to Parliament Hill Fields over C2 and removed from Hampstead Road. 44 extended Victoria to Regent St via C2 Other services strengthened or added south of Stockwell to deal with loss of 88. 3 extended to Camden Town over section of 88 via Hampstead Rd. There would be some frequency tweaks to balance capacity but I'd expect a reduction overall in Zone 1. There are obviously zillions of permutations you can play here but removal of terminal points in and around Oxford St / Oxford Circus will probably figure prominently. If you pedestrianise Oxford St by John Lewis then you can have the 25, 55, N55 terminating there and needing to cross the road. Ditto you lose stand space for the 137, 7 and 189. There will be pressure to pedestrianise all of these side streets too and make them piazzas. VS said she expected public realm redesign / improvement to spread into the areas north and south of Oxford Street. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 14, 2016 9:56:44 GMT
I would imagine the 159 will still go to Oxford Circus? There are numerous examples of over provision in Central London and inadequate levels of service in suburban areas. I would imagine the current stands at Oxford Circus are pretty much full up, wouldn't surprise me if it is cut to Piccadilly Circus. Some through routes can see them being diverted via Portman Square then back onto Regent Street such as the 6, 10, 73, 98, 390.. 137 to Marble Arch, 7 to Paddington, 94 via Green Park ? Oxford Circus is pretty full at the moment but I would think it will be losing quite a few routes? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 14, 2016 10:00:11 GMT
I think there's a more than reasonable chance the pedestrianisation of OS will go straight across Oxford Circus, blocking N-S flow up and down Regent Street. That being the case, the 159 won't be able to terminate at Oxford Circus... A remote possibility could be to reroute the 159 (and other relevant routes) via Green Park and Park Lane to Marble Arch. As for the Oxford Street/Regent Street junction, perhaps they could propose an extra wide pelican crossing so as to leave the Regent Street corridor accessible for through routes like the 88, C2, etc. An extra wide crossing or possibly even a pedestrian underpass, as opposed to a subway, similar to the one at Purley? |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 14, 2016 10:09:04 GMT
I think there's a more than reasonable chance the pedestrianisation of OS will go straight across Oxford Circus, blocking N-S flow up and down Regent Street. That being the case, the 159 won't be able to terminate at Oxford Circus... Coming back to buses I suspect we will see wholesale removal of some routes and others being extended to cover. Here's a theoretical example - C2 withdrawn. 88 withdrawn Clapham Common - Stockwell. Extended to Parliament Hill Fields over C2 and removed from Hampstead Road. 44 extended Victoria to Regent St via C2 Other services strengthened or added south of Stockwell to deal with loss of 88. 3 extended to Camden Town over section of 88 via Hampstead Rd. There would be some frequency tweaks to balance capacity but I'd expect a reduction overall in Zone 1. There are obviously zillions of permutations you can play here but removal of terminal points in and around Oxford St / Oxford Circus will probably figure prominently. If you pedestrianise Oxford St by John Lewis then you can have the 25, 55, N55 terminating there and needing to cross the road. Ditto you lose stand space for the 137, 7 and 189. There will be pressure to pedestrianise all of these side streets too and make them piazzas. VS said she expected public realm redesign / improvement to spread into the areas north and south of Oxford Street. Baring in mind the examples are theoretical, part of the problem there would be balance of work between operators where one section of route is replaced with a route done by another operator, eg. "...88 replaced by C2..." Was wondering how that would effect the C2 contract as it would be in effect be terminated early. I like the 44 idea into Regent Street, bringing back a daytime west end link from beyond Victoria to Tooting. It would also mean the 44 will have to be hybrid, bearing in mind Khan's plans on extending the ULEZ. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2016 11:16:06 GMT
Baring in mind the examples are theoretical, part of the problem there would be balance of work between operators where one section of route is replaced with a route done by another operator, eg. "...88 replaced by C2..." Was wondering how that would effect the C2 contract as it would be in effect be terminated early. I like the 44 idea into Regent Street, bringing back a daytime west end link from beyond Victoria to Tooting. It would also mean the 44 will have to be hybrid, bearing in mind Khan's plans on extending the ULEZ. Being brutal TfL doesn't owe any of the operators a living. There is always the possibility, normally remote, that routes will be severely reduced or abolished altogether. The risk of substantial changes as a result of pedestrianising Oxford St has been present for several years and the departure of Sir Peter Hendy from TfL has no doubt removed a significant obstacle to big bus changes. He was always very guarded about how it could be done and the "fall out" managed. No one at TfL will want to say "no" to the new regime when the axes have already been sharpened. Therefore there is no one who to really stand in the way of big changes. And yes TfL may end up financially worse off if garages are in the wrong place to run the new network effectively. Furthermore operators may be lumbered with garages and vehicles that are no longer needed / as useful as before. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 14, 2016 12:06:32 GMT
I heard that there would be a bus review later this year and so not surprised. One thing about pedestrianisation that I am surprised to read, is that there is no plans to use adjacent roads. I am sure that there are 'options' coming and that using adjacent road is one of them, but we wait and see. Imo using adjacent roads would be the most logical solution if pedestrianisation will go forward. There would be no point whatsoever in diverting all routes a long distance away from Oxford Street i.e. Green Park so as to keep in close proximity to Oxford Street as possible, therefore adjacent roads such as Wigmore Street and Brook Street would be the best way to minimise the inconvenience of a massive diversion. Additionally, Oxford Street routes would see a significant decrease in ridership if they're not kept within the vicinity of the corridor as the majority of their respective ridership are down to passengers using each route running along Oxford Street. Furthermore, this is only a theory, but the perpendicular roads connecting Oxford Street to Wigmore Street and Brook Street could be modified in a way to maximise accessibility through them in order to allow the connection to bus stops to be effective. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 14, 2016 13:54:01 GMT
I heard that there would be a bus review later this year and so not surprised. One thing about pedestrianisation that I am surprised to read, is that there is no plans to use adjacent roads. I am sure that there are 'options' coming and that using adjacent road is one of them, but we wait and see. The problem is, the adjacent roads are full of people whinging about buses and not wanting any to run along said roads so that's probably why it hasn't been mentioned as maybe TfL have yet to seek alternative roads if that's what they're going to do of course  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2016 15:05:34 GMT
I heard that there would be a bus review later this year and so not surprised. One thing about pedestrianisation that I am surprised to read, is that there is no plans to use adjacent roads. I am sure that there are 'options' coming and that using adjacent road is one of them, but we wait and see. Imo using adjacent roads would be the most logical solution if pedestrianisation will go forward. There would be no point whatsoever in diverting all routes a long distance away from Oxford Street i.e. Green Park so as to keep in close proximity to Oxford Street as possible, therefore adjacent roads such as Wigmore Street and Brook Street would be the best way to minimise the inconvenience of a massive diversion. Additionally, Oxford Street routes would see a significant decrease in ridership if they're not kept within the vicinity of the corridor as the majority of their respective ridership are down to passengers using each route running along Oxford Street. Furthermore, this is only a theory, but the perpendicular roads connecting Oxford Street to Wigmore Street and Brook Street could be modified in a way to maximise accessibility through them in order to allow the connection to bus stops to be effective. Not what Val Shawcross was saying. She said "you can't put hundreds of buses down Wigmore St or other side roads". Locals don't want that nor do Westminster City Council. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 14, 2016 17:23:47 GMT
Imo using adjacent roads would be the most logical solution if pedestrianisation will go forward. There would be no point whatsoever in diverting all routes a long distance away from Oxford Street i.e. Green Park so as to keep in close proximity to Oxford Street as possible, therefore adjacent roads such as Wigmore Street and Brook Street would be the best way to minimise the inconvenience of a massive diversion. Additionally, Oxford Street routes would see a significant decrease in ridership if they're not kept within the vicinity of the corridor as the majority of their respective ridership are down to passengers using each route running along Oxford Street. Furthermore, this is only a theory, but the perpendicular roads connecting Oxford Street to Wigmore Street and Brook Street could be modified in a way to maximise accessibility through them in order to allow the connection to bus stops to be effective. Not what Val Shawcross was saying. She said "you can't put hundreds of buses down Wigmore St or other side roads". Locals don't want that nor do Westminster City Council. Might possibly get one route along Wigmore Street but other than that I don't see any scope for using side roads. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2016 17:30:28 GMT
Not what Val Shawcross was saying. She said "you can't put hundreds of buses down Wigmore St or other side roads". Locals don't want that nor do Westminster City Council. Might possibly get one route along Wigmore Street but other than that I don't see any scope for using side roads. The views of Westminster City Council are key. They own / manage the roads including Oxford St. Nothing can happen without their agreement and we've already seen they've buckled on their plans for Baker St / Gloucester Place gyratory removal following residents feedback. I expect it will be a bit of a battle to get even 1 route down Wigmore St because it will be seen as a "foot in the door" which TfL will then exploit. We shall see. |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jul 14, 2016 20:10:49 GMT
I hope we can get one or a few routes down Wigmore St since that is a key alternative from N/NW approaches, since the suggestion seems to be pedestrianing beyond Selfridges right through to Marble Arch. But as said, we shall see.
Another minor point that I hope gets considered carefully is the particular effect on night-time and 24-hour routes. It would become an increasing nightmare getting to various parts of N/NW London from key entertainment/night time centres (Leicester SQ, Soho, Covent Gn etc) if buses cannot penetrate the great barrier of Oxford Street without anything between Edgware Road and TCR, and they only run to/from points to the north rather than around.
|
|
