http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria is
congested let's remove the trains.

Kevin

On 4 Feb, 12:40, "Zen83237" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria is
congested let's remove the trains.

Kevin

Part of the problem is the increased number of buses that were put on
before the Congestion Charge was introduced. Brilliant thinking - ie,
Increase the number of buses along Oxford Street to cope with the
congestion charge, and then complain that Oxford Street is congested
and start to reduce the number of buses.

On 4 Feb, 12:40, "Zen83237" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria is
congested let's remove the trains.

Kevin

Local politicians always make stupid decisions like that.

Its why Cripplegate, a beautiful mediaeval area that got bombed in
WW2, was turned into the Barbican instead of rebuilt close to its
original design.

And why kingsway is such a dead zone, despite being in the heart of
london.

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 05:17:42 -0800 (PST)
lonelytraveller wrote:
On 4 Feb, 12:40, "Zen83237" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria is
congested let's remove the trains.

Kevin

Local politicians always make stupid decisions like that.

Its why Cripplegate, a beautiful mediaeval area that got bombed in
WW2, was turned into the Barbican instead of rebuilt close to its
original design.

I'd agree with you about most modern developments but I think the Barbican
is quite nice. It actually disproves the notion that theres anything
inherently wrong with large tower block based housing estates - its all down
to the type of people who live there. Fill them with scum and the place will
turn into a cesspit. Fill them with the middle class and it'll remain well
cared for and pleasent.

Anyway , you can't bring a bombed out area back. The best you'll get is
a disneyland style fascimile of it.

B2003

"Paul" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb, 12:40, "Zen83237" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria
is
congested let's remove the trains.

Kevin

Part of the problem is the increased number of buses that were put on
before the Congestion Charge was introduced. Brilliant thinking - ie,
Increase the number of buses along Oxford Street to cope with the
congestion charge, and then complain that Oxford Street is congested
and start to reduce the number of buses.

But I assume that those buses actually go else where. They don't just
shuttle up and down Oxford St. If you withdraw the buses then other areas
suffer. You reroute them, to where precisely.

Kevin

On Feb 4, 12:40*pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria is
congested let's remove the trains.

The issue of Oxford Street and buses is hardly a new one, it's been an
issue for years - and I think I would agree in saying it's an "issue".

For a 'through journey' where the destination was not Oxford Street,
during the daytime I wouldn't chose to use a bus route that traversed
Oxford Street - it's basically a crawl. However I have used buses that
deliver one directly onto Oxford Street, and like many others have
also used them to 'escape' Oxford Street when loaded down with
shopping - in the latter scenario, the slow crawl is weighed up
against the potential to deliver one all the way home, or at least
somewhere else where one can change to get home - descending down into
the busy tube doesn't always look so attractive when there's an above
ground vehicle that offers a less complicated getaway (plus the buses
take some pressure off the overloaded tube network of course).

However, on the other side of the argument, the "wall of slow-moving
metal running along Oxford Street" - in the I think somewhat striking
phraseology of Victoria Borwick AM [1] - also seems pretty real. When
shopping, as opposed to arriving or departing, it doesn't really add
to the ambience. Sure, you can hop on a bus (easiest if it's bendy) to
get further down the street, but you can only get on and off at stops
and it's probably quicker walking anyway.

The Oxford Street tram proposal would address this of course - but
it's not going to happen, not any time soon at least. It's been
suggested it could be something that could be hung off the Cross River
Tram system (instead of it being a standalone proposal), but as we
know the CRT has well and truly shelved in the basement store of the
TfL library.

A "radical re-examination of central London bus routes" would indeed
be necessary if pedestrianisation were to happen - there'd be an awful
lot of knock on consequences.

You know what - instead of just reading the BBC story I thought it
might be a good idea to at least scan through the executive summary of
the transport committee's actual story (primary sources and all that!)
- it is a bit more measured than the OP seems to suggest.

This paragraph from the exec summary is most relevant:
---quote---
The Committee also examines more radical, long-term solutions. It
notes that there is no work currently being carried out to reconsider
the long-term operation of the transport system in the area. It
recommends that this should be undertaken and should include
consideration of a comprehensive reconfiguration of the bus network to
take the pressure off the area. This would open up other radical
options which have the potential to enhance the streets in the West
End. In particular, the Committee recommends that two options should
be considered in more detail: a shuttle bus to replace the major bus
routes travelling up and down Oxford Street and pedestrianisation of
the short area between Oxford Circus and Bond Street. The Mayor should
also include Oxford Street, Regent Street and Bond Street in his Great
Spaces programme to improve the public realm for visitors and
residents.
---/quote---

So, a shuttle bus, kind of like the tram idea but rather more
affordable and perhaps realistic - could even be (shock horror) one of
those evil bendy buses. And pedestrianisation between Oxford Circus
and Bond Street. Both at least worthy of consideration, I'd say. And
apparently no-one's currently looking at transport provision in the
area on a long term, strategic basis - so perhaps they should be. Also
seem like a fair comment (if it's accurate). Maybe the time has come
to do something radical here?

The whole report can be read here (PDF):
http://www.mayor-for-london.co.uk/pdf/streets-ahead.pdf

-----
[1] Having quickly glanced at the report, in Borwick's forward I see
"a red wall of metal" is actually Boris' phrase, so now I feel a bit
awkward for being impressed by it - I am not in awe of Borisisms,
because it often comes across that Boris wishes to govern by
(supposed) witticism alone. Anyway...!

Also, the masthead of Victoria Borwick's personal website seems, er, a
little dated - as does its URL - though it might come in handy for
2012 I suppose, should Boris decide to return to the Westminster fray
- see:
http://www.mayor-for-london.co.uk/

In message
,
lonelytraveller writes

Local politicians always make stupid decisions like that.

Its why Cripplegate, a beautiful mediaeval area that got bombed in
WW2, was turned into the Barbican instead of rebuilt close to its
original design.

The medieval part of Cripplegate Within was lost in the Great Fire of
London - and much of the rest went in the great Cripplegate fire of 1897
(St Giles survived, but was badly damaged). It had already been
identified by the City as an area of extreme slum conditions by 1851,
and was very run down before the Luftwaffe cleared it. I don't think it
would ever have been worth trying to restore anything other than St
Giles - there was certainly no original design that could have been
brought back.

I don't find the Barbican as offensive as many developments of its age,
and the housing stock is of good quality.

--
Paul Terry

On Feb 4, 1:00*pm, Paul wrote:

On 4 Feb, 12:40, "Zen83237" wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria is
congested let's remove the trains.

Part of the problem is the increased number of buses that were put on
before the Congestion Charge was introduced. Brilliant thinking - ie,
Increase the number of buses along Oxford Street to cope with the
congestion charge, and then complain that Oxford Street is congested
and start to reduce the number of buses.

A few points...

(1) This is a report from the Assembly's transport committee - the
role of the Assembly is to scrutinise and make suggestions, but they
don't really hold any executive power, that's in the hands of the
Mayor. So this is not an announcement of something that's about to
happen, merely a report that makes some suggestions - though it will
likely find a sympathetic ear with Boris.

(2) I'm not sure how directly you can directly link the extra buses
running down Oxford Street with the introduction of the congestion
charge, There were new bus routes introduced as a result of the CC -
an example is the 148 Shepherd's Bush to Camberwell, but this
conspicuously avoids Oxford Street, running instead down Park Lane
from Marble Arch. Of course overall the number of buses running in
London greatly increased over the past ten years, but that wasn't a
direct result of the CC, more a result of Ken's overall policy to
encourage people to use public transport, and buses in particular
(which, as the ridership figures show, was successful) - in other
words, the increasing number of buses was a part of the overall
transport strategy, which included the CC and many other things.

Mizter T wrote:

Maybe the time has come to do something radical here?

How about the city paying for footbridges with glass walls at 2nd floor
level between various large shops, crossing over Oxford Street and also over
side streets such as Orchard Street. This would allow pedestrian phases to
be shortened and pavements to be narrowed. Piezo electric mats on the
footbridges would generate power all day, to be used to run gentle
shimmering walls of light on the sides of the footbridges at night. Joe
public could pay a quid or two to submit images to a website to appear on
the walls for an hour - they'd have to be vetted, obviously - and the best
ones would be rerun during December.

This is, of course, more expensive than previous proposals in this thread
(maybe I should make that sentence my signature?)

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On 4 Feb, 13:42, wrote:

I'd agree with you about most modern developments but I think the Barbican
is quite nice. It actually disproves the notion that theres anything
inherently wrong with large tower block based housing estates - its all down
to the type of people who live there.
No, its really not. What you have with Barbican is an estate in the
middle of Zone 1 right next to massively wealthy companies, many of
whose staff choose to live in Barbican because of its proximity -
there simply is barely anywhere else in the city of london to actually
live. Take that away, and it would turn into a cesspit within a
decade.

On the other hand, places Barnsbury do well despite being nowhere near
the city, and in the middle of a rough area, surrounded on three sides
by council estates, and a massive prison.

That's because their niceness is inherent. But Barbican's atmosphere
is transient - change the people and it turns into a hell hole. That's
a flaw in Barbican's style. Tower block-based estates are never
inherently nice. Odds are that they will turn into hell holes - its
only in extremely rare circumstances where they are lucky enough to be
situated so close to massive income generating areas (basically, just
barbican, in fact) that they do even remotely well.

On the other hand, you'd be hard pushed to turn an area full of
Georgian squares, and well laid out and designed housing, into a
disaster zone, no matter who you fill it with.

Anyway , you can't bring a bombed out area back. The best you'll get is
a disneyland style fascimile of it.
Try telling that to the people of Warsaw or Novgorod, entire cities
which were heavily bombed out - Novgorod in fact was systematically
destroyed - yet brought back as a near total facsimile of their
previous selves.

Anyway, even a disneyland-style facsimile is an improvement on a
facsimile of corbousier.