"Paul" wrote:

Details of associated bus diversion are on the TfL website.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/livetravel...nt=1081997_TfL

Is anyone else a little p****d off at this? Whilst trying to attract
more people to Oxford Street and Regent Street, they are diverting the
buses away, thus making it more difficult to get there, and
conseuqently making the tube more overcrowded than it already is.

I am just wondering whether the benefits of making Oxford Street car
free outweigh the disadvantages

FWIW this pre-Xmas car-free day [1] has been happening for several years. At
least all the Tube lines serving the West End will be operation on Saturday
(the Bakerloo closure between Queen's Park and E&C is on Sunday).

Generally speaking I can't get very worked up about it happening on just one
day a year, though I guess I hadn't entirely put two and two together to
connect this annual exercise to the wider push by Oxford Street traders to
reduce the number of buses going down 'their' street.

And looking at it from a wider perspective, I'd think the only way it's at
all remotely feasible to even begin contemplate pedestrianising Oxford
Street on a permanent basis would be if there was a tram that passed down
its length (or, I suppose, a - shock horror - uber frequent bendy bus type
shuttle arrangement, could even be a trolley bus). The knock-on consequences
of banishing all buses from Oxford Street would be immense though.

-----
[1] The West End VIP (Very Important Pedestrians) Day.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Mizter T wrote:

And looking at it from a wider perspective, I'd think the only way it's
at all remotely feasible to even begin contemplate pedestrianising
Oxford Street on a permanent basis would be if there was a tram that
passed down its length (or, I suppose, a - shock horror - uber frequent
bendy bus type shuttle arrangement, could even be a trolley bus).

Even that would be tricky - any vehicles going down the road will diminish
its availability to pedestrians. Even pushbikes.

What we need is some sort of aerial contraption that moves people around
at a separated, higher, grade - an elevated railway, a monorail, a
cablecar, spare T5 pod-u-likes, something like that.

The knock-on consequences of banishing all buses from Oxford Street
would be immense though.

I haven't heard of a serious analysis of how much of that traffic could be
diverted along the A5204, with and without improving works on it and so
on.

tom

--
I think it would be a good idea -- Mohandas Gandhi, on Western
civilisation

Tom Anderson wrote in
rth.li:

What we need is some sort of aerial contraption that moves people
around at a separated, higher, grade - an elevated railway, a
monorail, a cablecar, spare T5 pod-u-likes, something like that.

Or what about a lower level? You could have some sort of subterranean
contraption with stops at, say, Marble Arch, Bond Street, Oxford Circus and
Tottenham Court Road.

Peter

--
| Peter Campbell Smith | Epsom | UK |

Peter Campbell Smith wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote in
arth.li:

What we need is some sort of aerial contraption that moves people
around at a separated, higher, grade - an elevated railway, a
monorail, a cablecar, spare T5 pod-u-likes, something like that.

Or what about a lower level? You could have some sort of subterranean
contraption with stops at, say, Marble Arch, Bond Street, Oxford Circus and
Tottenham Court Road.


That's a very good idea, but the very high cost of a tunnelled
solution in these straitened times would make people angry.

I suppose we could call it "Cross Rail"?

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

That's a very good idea, but the very high cost of a tunnelled
solution in these straitened times would make people angry.

I suppose we could call it "Cross Rail"?

Not 'Totally Pi$$ed Off Rail' then, I imagine that must be reserved for
HS2...

Paul

On Nov 24, 6:13*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:59:16 -0000, "Mizter T"
wrote:

Generally speaking I can't get very worked up about it happening on just one
day a year, though I guess I hadn't entirely put two and two together to
connect this annual exercise to the wider push by Oxford Street traders to
reduce the number of buses going down 'their' street.

And looking at it from a wider perspective, I'd think the only way it's at
all remotely feasible to even begin contemplate pedestrianising Oxford
Street on a permanent basis would be if there was a tram that passed down
its length (or, I suppose, a - shock horror - uber frequent bendy bus type
shuttle arrangement, could even be a trolley bus). The knock-on consequences
of banishing all buses from Oxford Street would be immense though.

You might therefore like to read this correspondence

http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/m...DF.aspx?ID=752

and then this reply.

http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/m...F.aspx?ID=1192

Looks like the proponents of this (IMO) daft idea are not going to give
up pushing their particular agenda.
--
Paul C

Would this argument be happening if Oxford Street happened to have a
roof over it?

Then it would be a shopping centre, and buses wouldn't be expected
inside.

I don't really understand why it's that much of an issue whether buses
go past the front door or back door of the shops. If the changes
involved a quicker route to some kind of bus station it might actually
improve access.

Bus travel is not significantly quicker than walking between Tottenham
Court Road and Bond Street with the current arrangement. If one
arrives on a 25 from the east, say, it generally makes sense to get
off in New Oxford Street and do the rest on foot. That won't really
change.

On Nov 25, 9:58*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:04:00 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
Would this argument be happening if Oxford Street happened to have a
roof over it?

Possibly - the shop owners would be complaining about people being
gassed to death by buses.

Then it would be a shopping centre, and buses wouldn't be expected
inside.

Now you go and make things realistic. Shame!

I don't really understand why it's that much of an issue whether buses
go past the front door or back door of the shops. *If the changes
involved a quicker route to some kind of bus station it might actually
improve access.

I think it is an issue. It has been proven time and again in provincial
cities that if you pedestrianise and shove buses out to the periphery of
the central area and impose a walking premium to and from stops then the
bus network loses patronage. You therefore weaken the entire network and
this will means cuts to services and / on increased fares. *Why on earth
should the viability and attractiveness of the bus network be sacrificed
to please a few shop owners? *What right do they have to dictate
transport policy in London or in any big city? * I appreciate that the
TfL network has different funding arrangements than elsewhere in the
country and may not be quite as vulnerable to cuts but even so several
useful links have been broken just to keep the Oxford Street shops
happy. *The 176 "round the corner" link at TCR gone, the 113 to Oxford
Circus gone, the 8 to Victoria gone, the 15 to Oxford Street and
Paddington gone. *There have been some replacements such as the C2 to
Victoria and the 159 to Paddington but the 15 could have been rerouted
via Piccadilly and Park Lane to give a brand new link in the network at
no cost in terms of extra buses. Why wasn't it done?

The 6 and 23 have had their frequencies reduced and half of the 25 will
be terminated at Holborn Circus M-S when it goes double deck in order to
avoid increasing bus numbers in Oxford Street. *Ironically all buses
will run through on a Sunday meaning the best route 25 service in Oxford
Street will be on a Sunday rather than the rush hour. *Someone care to
explain the logic in that? *No one has yet explained what on earth
happens with the 73 when it converts to double deck as that must present
a real challenge in keeping bus numbers down but still providing
adequate capacity for what is a very busy corridor from Oxford St to
Victoria. TfL will not be able to turn part of the service at TCR as
there is no space now and you've got much bigger works to come.

If, as the shop keepers and the Big West End Company say, Oxford Street
is prime retail territory then where on earth is TfL going to get the
money from to buy the land to build a bus station?

You have three areas of "bus stand" - TCR, Oxford Circus and thereabouts
and Marble Arch. TCR will lose space permanently as a result of the
station expansion, to terminate more buses at Oxford Circus would cause
the shop owners to blow a gasket and Marble Arch is still just a
glorified roundabout and has no spare land and no spare stand capacity.

Bus travel is not significantly quicker than walking between Tottenham
Court Road and Bond Street with the current arrangement. *If one
arrives on a 25 from the east, say, it generally makes sense to get
off in New Oxford Street and do the rest on foot. *That won't really
change.

While Oxford St can get a bit jammed I do not think it is the bus
nightmare that the shop owners present it as. The problem is that a
number of key routes in the bus network use Oxford Street on *part* of
their journey. If they are all curtailed at the edges then the bus
network loses utility and people will stop using buses and either
congest the tube even more or use cars. Those results don't take you
forward IMO. *There are no convenient east - west routes to the south of
Oxford Street and only Wigmore St to the north for the western half of
Oxford Street. There is apparently huge local resistance to any buses
running down Wigmore Street even though they did in the 50s and 60s.
You're therefore stuck as to what to do - you either keep things as they
are or you terminate all the routes at Marble Arch and TCR and force
people to walk or push themselves in their wheelchairs. *I would point
out there is no space at Marble Arch for more routes to terminate and
Tottenham Court Road Stn is a huge building site for 8 years. *

The ideal would be a tram but *only* if it was part of a wider network
of light rail services that served other parts of London. There is, of
course, no aspiration to make such an improvement to London's transport
network. The emphasis is on more subterranean services with their longer
access times from street to platform. *We are therefore left with what
looks like a battle between bus passengers and shop owners. In my view
the bit that the shop owners sometimes forget (or at least appear to do
so) is that those same bus passengers are either their employees or else
their customers. *It seems immensely short sighted to make it harder for
your employees to get to work or for people to access your businesses to
spend money. *Still I'm just someone who uses buses so what do I know?

On Nov 25, 9:58*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:04:00 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
Would this argument be happening if Oxford Street happened to have a
roof over it?

Possibly - the shop owners would be complaining about people being
gassed to death by buses.

Then it would be a shopping centre, and buses wouldn't be expected
inside.

Now you go and make things realistic. Shame!

I don't really understand why it's that much of an issue whether buses
go past the front door or back door of the shops. *If the changes
involved a quicker route to some kind of bus station it might actually
improve access.

I think it is an issue. It has been proven time and again in provincial
cities that if you pedestrianise and shove buses out to the periphery of
the central area and impose a walking premium to and from stops then the
bus network loses patronage. You therefore weaken the entire network and
this will means cuts to services and / on increased fares. *Why on earth
should the viability and attractiveness of the bus network be sacrificed
to please a few shop owners? *What right do they have to dictate
transport policy in London or in any big city? * I appreciate that the
TfL network has different funding arrangements than elsewhere in the
country and may not be quite as vulnerable to cuts but even so several
useful links have been broken just to keep the Oxford Street shops
happy. *The 176 "round the corner" link at TCR gone, the 113 to Oxford
Circus gone, the 8 to Victoria gone, the 15 to Oxford Street and
Paddington gone. *There have been some replacements such as the C2 to
Victoria and the 159 to Paddington but the 15 could have been rerouted
via Piccadilly and Park Lane to give a brand new link in the network at
no cost in terms of extra buses. Why wasn't it done?

The 6 and 23 have had their frequencies reduced and half of the 25 will
be terminated at Holborn Circus M-S when it goes double deck in order to
avoid increasing bus numbers in Oxford Street. *Ironically all buses
will run through on a Sunday meaning the best route 25 service in Oxford
Street will be on a Sunday rather than the rush hour. *Someone care to
explain the logic in that? *No one has yet explained what on earth
happens with the 73 when it converts to double deck as that must present
a real challenge in keeping bus numbers down but still providing
adequate capacity for what is a very busy corridor from Oxford St to
Victoria. TfL will not be able to turn part of the service at TCR as
there is no space now and you've got much bigger works to come.

If, as the shop keepers and the Big West End Company say, Oxford Street
is prime retail territory then where on earth is TfL going to get the
money from to buy the land to build a bus station?

You have three areas of "bus stand" - TCR, Oxford Circus and thereabouts
and Marble Arch. TCR will lose space permanently as a result of the
station expansion, to terminate more buses at Oxford Circus would cause
the shop owners to blow a gasket and Marble Arch is still just a
glorified roundabout and has no spare land and no spare stand capacity.

Bus travel is not significantly quicker than walking between Tottenham
Court Road and Bond Street with the current arrangement. *If one
arrives on a 25 from the east, say, it generally makes sense to get
off in New Oxford Street and do the rest on foot. *That won't really
change.

While Oxford St can get a bit jammed I do not think it is the bus
nightmare that the shop owners present it as. The problem is that a
number of key routes in the bus network use Oxford Street on *part* of
their journey. If they are all curtailed at the edges then the bus
network loses utility and people will stop using buses and either
congest the tube even more or use cars. Those results don't take you
forward IMO. *There are no convenient east - west routes to the south of
Oxford Street and only Wigmore St to the north for the western half of
Oxford Street. There is apparently huge local resistance to any buses
running down Wigmore Street even though they did in the 50s and 60s.
You're therefore stuck as to what to do - you either keep things as they
are or you terminate all the routes at Marble Arch and TCR and force
people to walk or push themselves in their wheelchairs. *I would point
out there is no space at Marble Arch for more routes to terminate and
Tottenham Court Road Stn is a huge building site for 8 years. *

The ideal would be a tram but *only* if it was part of a wider network
of light rail services that served other parts of London. There is, of
course, no aspiration to make such an improvement to London's transport
network. The emphasis is on more subterranean services with their longer
access times from street to platform. *We are therefore left with what
looks like a battle between bus passengers and shop owners. In my view
the bit that the shop owners sometimes forget (or at least appear to do
so) is that those same bus passengers are either their employees or else
their customers. *It seems immensely short sighted to make it harder for
your employees to get to work or for people to access your businesses to
spend money. *Still I'm just someone who uses buses so what do I know?

--
Paul C

I don't feel that strongly about it really. I can see the difficulty
in providing a decent bus service without going down Oxford Street.

The thing is that I am not that convinced of how good it is anyway.
When I've worked anywhere between Holborn and Marble Arch (and I have
in a couple of different places) I've never even considered using a
bus.

I've used them east of Holborn a few times, but only in the evening
when time doesn't matter so much. I briefly tried using the 521 in
the mornings (when it was still bendy) and spent so long in jams that
I had to give up.

On 25 Nov, 21:58, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:04:00 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
Would this argument be happening if Oxford Street happened to have a
roof over it?

Possibly - the shop owners would be complaining about people being
gassed to death by buses.

Then it would be a shopping centre, and buses wouldn't be expected
inside.

Now you go and make things realistic. Shame!

I don't really understand why it's that much of an issue whether buses
go past the front door or back door of the shops. *If the changes
involved a quicker route to some kind of bus station it might actually
improve access.

I think it is an issue. It has been proven time and again in provincial
cities that if you pedestrianise and shove buses out to the periphery of
the central area and impose a walking premium to and from stops then the
bus network loses patronage. You therefore weaken the entire network and
this will means cuts to services and / on increased fares. *Why on earth
should the viability and attractiveness of the bus network be sacrificed
to please a few shop owners? *What right do they have to dictate
transport policy in London or in any big city? * I appreciate that the
TfL network has different funding arrangements than elsewhere in the
country and may not be quite as vulnerable to cuts but even so several
useful links have been broken just to keep the Oxford Street shops
happy. *The 176 "round the corner" link at TCR gone, the 113 to Oxford
Circus gone, the 8 to Victoria gone, the 15 to Oxford Street and
Paddington gone. *There have been some replacements such as the C2 to
Victoria and the 159 to Paddington but the 15 could have been rerouted
via Piccadilly and Park Lane to give a brand new link in the network at
no cost in terms of extra buses. Why wasn't it done?

The 6 and 23 have had their frequencies reduced and half of the 25 will
be terminated at Holborn Circus M-S when it goes double deck in order to
avoid increasing bus numbers in Oxford Street. *Ironically all buses
will run through on a Sunday meaning the best route 25 service in Oxford
Street will be on a Sunday rather than the rush hour. *Someone care to
explain the logic in that? *No one has yet explained what on earth
happens with the 73 when it converts to double deck as that must present
a real challenge in keeping bus numbers down but still providing
adequate capacity for what is a very busy corridor from Oxford St to
Victoria. TfL will not be able to turn part of the service at TCR as
there is no space now and you've got much bigger works to come.

If, as the shop keepers and the Big West End Company say, Oxford Street
is prime retail territory then where on earth is TfL going to get the
money from to buy the land to build a bus station?

You have three areas of "bus stand" - TCR, Oxford Circus and thereabouts
and Marble Arch. TCR will lose space permanently as a result of the
station expansion, to terminate more buses at Oxford Circus would cause
the shop owners to blow a gasket and Marble Arch is still just a
glorified roundabout and has no spare land and no spare stand capacity.

Bus travel is not significantly quicker than walking between Tottenham
Court Road and Bond Street with the current arrangement. *If one
arrives on a 25 from the east, say, it generally makes sense to get
off in New Oxford Street and do the rest on foot. *That won't really
change.

While Oxford St can get a bit jammed I do not think it is the bus
nightmare that the shop owners present it as. The problem is that a
number of key routes in the bus network use Oxford Street on *part* of
their journey. If they are all curtailed at the edges then the bus
network loses utility and people will stop using buses and either
congest the tube even more or use cars. Those results don't take you
forward IMO. *There are no convenient east - west routes to the south of
Oxford Street and only Wigmore St to the north for the western half of
Oxford Street. There is apparently huge local resistance to any buses
running down Wigmore Street even though they did in the 50s and 60s.
You're therefore stuck as to what to do - you either keep things as they
are or you terminate all the routes at Marble Arch and TCR and force
people to walk or push themselves in their wheelchairs. *I would point
out there is no space at Marble Arch for more routes to terminate and
Tottenham Court Road Stn is a huge building site for 8 years. *

The ideal would be a tram but *only* if it was part of a wider network
of light rail services that served other parts of London. There is, of
course, no aspiration to make such an improvement to London's transport
network. The emphasis is on more subterranean services with their longer
access times from street to platform. *We are therefore left with what
looks like a battle between bus passengers and shop owners. In my view
the bit that the shop owners sometimes forget (or at least appear to do
so) is that those same bus passengers are either their employees or else
their customers. *It seems immensely short sighted to make it harder for
your employees to get to work or for people to access your businesses to
spend money. *Still I'm just someone who uses buses so what do I know?

--
Paul C

Wouldn't it be better to keep the 73 PVR as it is now and increase the
476 between Stokey and Central London? I'd suggest that it goes
somewhere more useful than Euston.

Since mass OPO conversions bus travel in the West End is often so slow
that it's quicker to walk anyway.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

It has been proven time and again in provincial cities that if you
pedestrianise and shove buses out to the periphery of the central area
and impose a walking premium to and from stops then the bus network
loses patronage. You therefore weaken the entire network and this will
means cuts to services and / on increased fares. Why on earth should
the viability and attractiveness of the bus network be sacrificed to
please a few shop owners?

You've gone wrong! This would be for the benefit of people using Oxford
Street - like me - not the shop owners. If it also benefits the
shopkeepers, great, but the point of it is to make the space more suitable
for human use.

The idea that the use of public spaces by people should be impinged on for
the benefit of transport networks is an utterly lunatic case of putting
the cart before the horse.

tom

--
Virtually everything you touch has been mined. -- Prof Keith Atkinson