TfL consider a ban on Oxford st buses

[Clip]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ever-ban-on-oxford-street-buses-10328246.html

London transport bosses are considering an Oxford Street bus ban for the first time to help clean up the filthy air on Britain’s most polluted road.



Transport Commissioner Sir Peter Hendy said the arrival of Crossrail in 2018 was a “game-changer” for the West End that allowed him to consider the previously unthinkeable.

He told the Standard: ”For years we’ve been accused of being dog in the manger about buses on Oxford Street, now we are in a completely different place.”

“We are looking at all the options and we will countenance taking all the buses out. We wouldn’t rule anything out.”

I still don't understand why they haven't done this any earlier but I do understand the problems by doing so as to where would they go but its bloody horrendous down there and doesn't make it pleasant to visit

 

[jon0844]

Wouldn't a tram work quite well along Oxford Street (and potentially beyond in both directions) with only taxis given access?

Of course, buses that cross London would need another route, which would surely just move the congestion elsewhere - unless the plan is to split those routes up? Now that would cause some problems!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't a tram work quite well along Oxford Street (and potentially beyond in both directions) with only taxis given access?

Why should filthy, road-blocking taxis be given access? Buses are more justified, though I agree a tram or trolleybus on one route might be a good approach.

 

[radamfi]

Why should filthy, road-blocking taxis be given access?

The sheer volume of taxis in central London is ridiculous, contribute significantly to congestion and often make bus lanes pointless as they are often full of taxis. However new taxis from 2018 are supposed to be zero emission when operating in central London so the pollution argument will be less valid. They could do more. For example all taxis at Schiphol airport are now all fully electric Teslas.

 

[Deerfold]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ever-ban-on-oxford-street-buses-10328246.html



I still don't understand why they haven't done this any earlier but I do understand the problems by doing so as to where would they go but its bloody horrendous down there and doesn't make it pleasant to visit

The main problem is where do the through buses go without blocking up backstreets.

In recent years, TfL has reduced the number of buses along Oxford Street by 20%, but any space gained has been taken up by increased numbers of taxis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The sheer volume of taxis in central London is ridiculous, contribute significantly to congestion and often make bus lanes pointless as they are often full of taxis. However new taxis from 2018 are supposed to be zero emission when operating in central London so the pollution argument will be less valid. They could do more. For example all taxis at Schiphol airport are now all fully electric Teslas.

Taxis are hired private transport and should be treated as such. I have no particular issue with them otherwise, but they should not get to block bus lanes or stop where they feel like. As they are they basically give the rich the right to walk all over a row of buses full of passengers.

I would be quite happy with a system whereby for a taxi to stop to drop off in a bus lane or on a Red Route they had to display a disabled passenger's blue badge. As for the comment about the rich, there is no need to use a taxi in central London at all unless disabled or of limited mobility - indeed my employer's policy is not to pay expenses if you do. Picking up takes seconds so isn't much of an issue, dropping off takes longer as there is a financial transaction to perform, usually in time-wasting cash. Another option may be to require the only payment method permitted to be Oyster/contactless. But even so, many cities (e.g. Singapore) don't allow taxis to just stop anywhere, you have to go to a taxi rank.

But if we *must* have them blocking the way, they should indeed be non-polluting at the point of use, rather than filthy diesels. Even replacing them with small cars (Chevrolet Matiz sort of size would be perfect, after all they mostly carry one passenger) and coming up with another solution to disabled accessibility would be preferable to the current situation.

 

[Be3G]

Wouldn't a tram work quite well along Oxford Street (and potentially beyond in both directions) with only taxis given access?

You're not the first person to have had the idea. Unfortunately too much opposition for anything to become of it.

 

[Deerfold]

You're not the first person to have had the idea. Unfortunately too much opposition for anything to become of it.

And it doesn't solve the problem of where through buses go instead - and introduces an additional change for a large number of people.

 

[philjo]

I would favour the use of trolleybuses.
many of the modern buses now use electric motors with diesel engines to charge the batteries.
Presumably the central area could be wired and the buses run as normal on other parts of the route so no need to change buses.
Oxford street would be done first & then extend to Euston & victoria which would cover large sections of a number of the key routes that use Oxford street. (10/73/390 etc)

I would not want to many buses diverted away from Oxford street as then you have further to walk to the shops which is part of the point of using the bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it doesn't solve the problem of where through buses go instead - and introduces an additional change for a large number of people.

I see no massive issue with a change *except* for London's stubborn refusal to operate a German-style joint-tariff fare system in which a single journey is a single journey regardless[1] of mode or number of changes. It is utterly preposterous that in a single regulated system a fare must still be paid per vehicle - people having to change are disadvantaged by having to change, and then kicked in the proverbial again by having to pay twice.

The argument against this was classically the issue of passback or selling on of tickets, but Oyster/contactless completely resolves this.

[1] Because of Tube overcrowding the one concession I'd make for London would be that a bus journey, again regardless of the number of changes of vehicle, would perhaps cost less than an all-mode journey.

And yes, I think a tram would make sense. A good route might be Euston via the 73 route to Victoria, with interchange at both ends for the outer reaches (or even just Marble Arch). Another good one would be Euston to Aldwych via Kingsway as there once was.

 

[Hadders]

Taxis are hired private transport and should be treated as such. I have no particular issue with them otherwise, but they should not get to block bus lanes or stop where they feel like. As they are they basically give the rich the right to walk all over a row of buses full of passengers.

I would be quite happy with a system whereby for a taxi to stop to drop off in a bus lane or on a Red Route they had to display a disabled passenger's blue badge. As for the comment about the rich, there is no need to use a taxi in central London at all unless disabled or of limited mobility - indeed my employer's policy is not to pay expenses if you do. Picking up takes seconds so isn't much of an issue, dropping off takes longer as there is a financial transaction to perform, usually in time-wasting cash. Another option may be to require the only payment method permitted to be Oyster/contactless. But even so, many cities (e.g. Singapore) don't allow taxis to just stop anywhere, you have to go to a taxi rank.

But if we *must* have them blocking the way, they should indeed be non-polluting at the point of use, rather than filthy diesels. Even replacing them with small cars (Chevrolet Matiz sort of size would be perfect, after all they mostly carry one passenger) and coming up with another solution to disabled accessibility would be preferable to the current situation.

Interesting post.

Of course not everyone is fit and able. Furthermore most of those who are not fit and able don't have blue badges either. I'm thinking of:

- older people who aren't as nimble as they used to be.
- parents with young children
- people who are ill (I took a taxi home from the station on Wednesday after a difficult journey because I was feeling unwell with the onset of a chest infection rather than catching the bus (for which I already had a plusbus ticket).

Have you ever been inside a Matiz? The most dangerous car I think I've ever driven. I was given one as a courtesy car when my normal car was having some repairs. The pedals are so close together you end up pressing the accelerator and brake at the same time if your shoe size is anything bigger than a size 4. The boot just about takes a ladies handbag, certainly no room for a suitcase. Oh - and good luck if you're taller than 6'.

A couple of years ago I was making a journey from Gatwick Airport to Northampton with my parents. I'd purchased tickets to travel via Kensington Olympia because they were cheaper and the changes were easier for my parents who aren't the most fleet footed people these days. Engineering works on the way back meant we had to travel via Central London. Got to the Underground to find the Victoria Line closed. I really didn't fancy the alternative of travelling via Embankment as well as having to explain why my 'via Kensgington Olympia' ticket was valid on the underground so decided to get a taxi. £20 for the three of us to Euston. Reasonable-ish in the circumstances. Under your proposals what should I have done? Sent my parents off in one (or two) Matiz's with me following on behind? Or braved the Underground?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Under your proposals what should I have done? Sent my parents off in one (or two) Matiz's with me following on behind? Or braved the Underground?

Or taken the number 73 bus, perhaps, which runs direct from Euston to Victoria? Not made easier by the need for Oyster/contactless, though; as part of a London "Verbundtarif" I would say through tickets should also have bus validity and not just Tube.

Yes, you'd have had to use a larger number of smaller taxis. But I retain my view, because most taxis carry only one person it makes no environmental sense whatsoever to have them as large vehicles. Perhaps I was being a bit extreme with a Matiz, though (it was the first micro-MPV that sprung to mind); perhaps something a little larger like a Suzuki Wagon R+ or equivalent is the kind of size sensible. And those are fine for tall people - I'm 6' 4" and one of those was my first car. Very comfortable and practical, and the high seating makes access easier than crawling into a black cab on all fours (the way the proper seats are so far from the doors is another terrible design feature of the classic taxi).

 

[transmanche]

I would favour the use of trolleybuses.
many of the modern buses now use electric motors with diesel engines to charge the batteries.
Presumably the central area could be wired and the buses run as normal on other parts of the route so no need to change buses.

Certainly the BorisBus is a 'series-hybrid' with a fully electric drivetrain, which is how they managed to fit the diesel engine under the rear staircase. It would be comparatively easy to replace this with a transformer/voltage regulator thingamabob and add a trolley collector to make an all-electric bus. In fact the Evening Standard published an article back in 2012 about a possible BorisBus trolleybus variant operating along Oxford Street to reduce bus emissions.

 

[jopsuk]

The thing with Trams and Trolleys for Oxford Street is that it isn't just the pollution. With the sheer number of pedestrians the footways become very crowded with people spilling into the carriageway.

Further, the sheer number of buses is down to a large number of routes- there are six west of Oxford Circus tube station, four east of there of which three go the full length. If it was a tram system centred on there, you'd have lines to Kings Cross, Stoke Newington & Archway; Ilford; Liverpool Street, Waterloo & Streatham; West Hampstead; Westbourne Park; Notting Hill Gate; Hammersmith and Victoria. Unless you decided to massively shake everything up and potentially make trips more awkward by having feeder buses to tram terminals. Relevant routes are 10, 23, 25, 73, 139, 159, 390

 

[Deerfold]

I see no massive issue with a change *except* for London's stubborn refusal to operate a German-style joint-tariff fare system in which a single journey is a single journey regardless[1] of mode or number of changes. It is utterly preposterous that in a single regulated system a fare must still be paid per vehicle - people having to change are disadvantaged by having to change, and then kicked in the proverbial again by having to pay twice.

I wasn't thinking about the problem of paying, but the fact you'll have to change onto another form of transport (and wait again) if you're going to somewhere on Oxford Street, making journeys less convenient.

If you're going to keep all current journey opportunities, all the rerouted buses will still have to go through Marble Arch and Tottenham Court Road to connect with passengers from the tram system.

 

[Harlan Cage]

Ban cars and pedestrians and make it into Boris inspired Lycra Way!

HC

 

[radamfi]

The argument against this was classically the issue of passback or selling on of tickets, but Oyster/contactless completely resolves this.

[1] Because of Tube overcrowding the one concession I'd make for London would be that a bus journey, again regardless of the number of changes of vehicle, would perhaps cost less than an all-mode journey.

Metrobus, which is particularly advanced in terms of smartcards and willingness to innovate and communicate with its users, still does not allow penalty free interchange, despite having smartcard tickets giving a number of trips at a discount. When I suggested one hour tickets to Metrobus, the excuse given against one hour tickets was that people returning within the hour would only pay one fare. But surely that would apply anywhere where one hour tickets exist, and some places forbid returning on the same ticket, although that is difficult to enforce.

I used to accept the argument that having lower bus fares reduces congestion on the Tube, but the argument is now reversing (which is probably the angle where Hendy is coming from) because Crossrail adds a lot of capacity and bus overcrowding is now severe, exacerbated by the lower bus fares. Route 25 is a particular example where I hypothesise that a lot of people are sitting on the bus for long journeys where rail or Tube (and in future Crossrail) would be much quicker. This may be the first indication that TfL are planning substantial cuts to the central London bus network where there is a parallel rail based mode, with resources moved to areas wholly dependent on buses. If this happens, hopefully this will lead to a fully integrated fare system.

 

[transmanche]

I see no massive issue with a change *except* for London's stubborn refusal to operate a German-style joint-tariff fare system in which a single journey is a single journey regardless[1] of mode or number of changes. It is utterly preposterous that in a single regulated system a fare must still be paid per vehicle - people having to change are disadvantaged by having to change, and then kicked in the proverbial again by having to pay twice.

I've often thought that a free/cheap bus add-on to a tube/train fare[*] would be a good thing for through journeys.

Having continuation bus journeys (within a time period) being counted as one journey would nice too - at present for non-Z1 off-peak journeys it's £1.50 anywhere on tube/DLR/NR 'green' routes, no matter how many changes. Yet, it's the same price for a single bus journey. I guess TfL would counter that daily capping is an alternative way of ensuring most people don't 'lose out' and that you can't 'have your cake and eat it' by having both.

* Much like Tyne & Wear's TransFare, before Nexus broke the system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess TfL would counter that daily capping is an alternative way of ensuring most people don't 'lose out' and that you can't 'have your cake and eat it' by having both.

Except it isn't now the caps are so high. And every German Verkehrsverbund proves that cake can indeed be had and eaten.

 

[Busaholic]

I could write a whole thesis on this subject, but will confine myself to these observations for now:-

1) Wigmore Street was used by the West Hampstead routes (59/A, 159) for decades as an alternative to Oxford Street from Portman Square to Oxford Circus - the contemporary routes would be the 139 and 189, and the 13 could also go this way

2) What has been the point of all these new diesel engines/ hybrids developed at vast cost if they are still so pollutant?

3) Where would all the buses terminate? Tottenham Court Road at Centre Point is already crammed and Marble Arch is not much better, and where's the interchange?

4) All very well mentioning Crossrail, and Central Line for that matter, but the north/south tube connections are not nearly so good, particularly with the Bakerloo only starting at the Elephant and no through Northern Line trains from the Morden direction post-Battersea if some get their their way.

As for trams, it would be a complete non-starter, because we can't 'do' trams on city centre streets in this country. There'd be five years without buses or trams while the whole sorry mess was sorted out. (I belong to tramway societies, by the way, and in general support trams in the right environment, which does not include the Oxford Street of 2015.)

 

[Tetchytyke]

* Much like Tyne & Wear's TransFare, before Nexus broke the system.

It wasn't Nexus who broke Transfare, it was greedy Go-Ahead being greedy (which will sound familiar to those of us who use London commuter railways).

 

[transmanche]

Except it isn't now the caps are so high. And every German Verkehrsverbund proves that cake can indeed be had and eaten.

Wouldn't that just mean that many fares (especially bus fares) would have to rise?

 

[radamfi]

Wouldn't that just mean that many fares (especially bus fares) would have to rise?

A single journey in Zone 1-2 at the moment costs between £1.50 and £6.40 depending on how many changes are made. A proper single fare covering a whole single journey along the German system would be somewhere in that range, at a wild guess maybe about £3. Alternatively you could have the Dutch system where the distance is measured and you pay according to the number of km travelled, but that requires touch out for buses.

 

[LexyBoy]

Could they not just ban Oxford St in its entirety?

 

[radamfi]

Under the German system the single fare may seem rather high, but there are usually multiple journey tickets giving a discount.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't that just mean that many fares (especially bus fares) would have to rise?

Of course fares would have to rise, but they would be fairer. Charging per vehicle is incredibly unfair. If they wanted to graduate fares, a return to zonal charging (and having you touch out as well as in) would be better.

 

[Dent]

I would favour the use of trolleybuses.

How would replacing ordinary buses with trolleybuses do anything to reduce congestion? Surely a trolley bus would take up just as much road space as any other bus with the same capacity, and would have additional problems of not being able to divert round obstructions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would replacing ordinary buses with trolleybuses do anything to reduce congestion? Surely a trolley bus would take up just as much road space as any other bus with the same capacity, and would have additional problems of not being able to divert round obstructions.

It'd reduce pollution, though - Oxford Street stinks.

 

[radamfi]

Some places have a zonal system without touching out, where you press a button before touching in to indicate the number of zones.

 

[transmanche]

Surely a trolley bus would take up just as much road space as any other bus with the same capacity, and would have additional problems of not being able to divert round obstructions.

Batteries - every hybrid bus has them. Many 'first generation' trolleybuses had batteries in order to "divert round obstacles".