There have been proposals to pedestrianise Oxford Street for many years, but until now nothing has happened. This was partly because it was regarded as too difficult and partly because the City of Westminster (who ‘own’ the road) opposed it, due to the traffic that would spill onto the surrounding streets.
Deck the street
The problem of mixing traffic and people in Oxford Street has been recognised for a long time. In 1963, Colin Buchanan produced a report entitled ‘Traffic in Towns’, which proposed a pedestrian deck above Oxford Street with access to shops via the first floor. This was very much in keeping with the thought at the time that there should be elevated pedestrian ways (‘pedways’) enabling segregation of pedestrians and road traffic.
To this day the intentions of Colin Buchanan are disputed. It was seen by most people at the time as a desirable solution but others saw it as a warning as to what would become necessary if society did not tame the motor vehicle.
Halfway there
In the 1970s, the pavements of Oxford Street were getting very busy indeed. To the point where people were forced onto the road. The situation was rapidly becoming totally unacceptable and so the west part of Oxford Street was banned to all vehicles except for buses, taxis, cycles and essential delivery vehicles. This enabled the pavement to be widened, resulting in a street with a single lane in each direction with additional bays (where appropriate) instead of two traffic lanes in each direction as befitted a key traffic artery in the heart of London.
Once the restrictions had been put in place, over the course of a fortnight a tarmac-laying machine was used to widen the pavements and provide much-needed extra space for pedestrians. While it made them safer, it could not really be said that anything positive had specifically been done to improve the ambiance for pedestrians. Indeed the whole street looked like a complete mess.
Replace, renew, reclutter
At a later stage, the eastern (and more down-market) end of Oxford Street was treated in the same way. Over the years various measures were taken to improve the street itself, including replacing both the existing paved part and the tarmacked part of the pavement with new paving slabs. This helped improve the environment and end the temporary feel to the changes – but it still felt very cluttered. Indeed Oxford Street was often used as an example to show the effect of street clutter with numerous poles and signs everywhere – and even some poles with no signs on them. There was no real feeling that the pedestrian came first.
A controversial success
Apart from the need to make the pedestrian environment safer, the 1970s aimed to improve and make more reliable the journey time for bus travel – something that was already seen to be a major problem. As well as buses, taxis were allowed in Oxford Street. The impression given was that taxis were allowed partly to ‘fill up’ the otherwise largely empty road and because of the anticipated traffic disruption (and protests) if taxis were forced to use surrounding roads.
The scheme, pioneering in the UK at the time, attracted national attention – and protests. The objections, in the days of a time when the car was dominating people’s lives, were largely along the lines of: ‘I pay my road fund licence, why should buses get preferential treatment?’
And stagnation
In the next forty years or so little changed and the remaining traffic was still present. With pedestrian town centres elsewhere and competition from out-of-town shopping centres (and later online), there was much talk of full pedestrianisation – but talk is all that it was.
One of the main sticking points was that the City of Westminster (and its residents) did not want the remaining Oxford Street traffic to be diverted to the side streets which, for the most part, were not really appropriate for buses. Taxis, with their habit of stopping just anywhere to pick up a fare or set down passengers then spend time sorting out payment, were probably equally unwelcome.
The streets have a Monopoly
Not openly stated by the City of Westminster, but almost certainly in their thoughts, was the fact that shopping in the West End was much more than ‘ORB’ – Oxford Street, Regent Street and Bond Street. One is reluctant to pin the blame on a board game but Monopoly probably did much to reinforce the notion that shopping in the West End of London was largely focused on these three streets. It wouldn’t have been right not only to give preference specifically to Oxford Street traders, but also to do so in such a way that meant that other traders, who would be adversely affected by the displaced traffic, were disadvantaged.
What and why
Questions we often ask at London Reconnections are ‘what has changed?’ and ‘why now?’ The nebulous answers, in this case, are ‘just about everything’ and ‘for a whole host of reasons’.
The most obvious thing that has changed is the Mayor. Not only that but a Mayor who has a very different agenda from his two predecessors. We will expand on this shortly. The other thing that has changed is the attitude to, awareness of and legislative framework covering air pollution.
There has been some criticism of London Reconnections for ascribing uncertainty and its consequences too much on Brexit. In the case of environmental legislation though, the government – and Michael Gove in particular – have made it quite clear that environmental standards will not be lowered as a result of leaving the EU. There is even a claim that these will be tougher as the UK pursues its own legislation.
Choice or necessity?
The Mayor of London is a very powerful man, almost free to pursue his own agenda, but even the Mayor has to act within the legal framework – something Boris Johnson may be belatedly realising with the Garden Bridge. Oxford Street has been notorious for breaching EU regulations on pollution and particularly pollution generated by traffic. So, at London Reconnections, we would suggest that it wouldn’t have mattered much who had been elected Mayor, they would probably have still have had an agenda to rid Oxford Street of polluting traffic sooner rather than later. Perhaps the difference is simply that Sadiq Khan is pursuing this with gusto, rather than with reluctance.
An indication of how Oxford Street might look in future
In a way, given his manifesto, it would have been almost impossible for Sadiq Khan not to pursue a policy of pedestrianising Oxford Street. In many cases his manifesto commitments would have fallen apart like a pack of cards if he couldn’t even manage to honour them in Oxford Street – the most obvious and worthwhile location to make a start.
The manifesto is key
Sadiq Khan’s manifesto commitments were quite extensive. His determination to tackle pollution head-on was one of the more publicised ones, but others also feature heavily in the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street. He was determined to tackle road deaths and, in particular, pedestrian deaths from accidents involving buses – something that he hRas some control over. Just about the worse place in London for deaths and injuries from being hit by a bus is Oxford Street. If he couldn’t tackle this here, then it would have made a mockery of this policy. While completely meaningless as a valid statistical measurement, an indication of the problem is highlighted by the fact that by the end of the first week of 2018, Oxford Street has already had its first serious incident of a pedestrian being hit by a bus.
Another of Sadiq Khan’s policies is ‘healthy streets’ – making streets pleasant for pedestrians and encouraging people to walk. This is absolutely at the heart of his mayoralty and his Draft Transport Plan, more detailed and at variance from those of his predecessors, is built around this. Now people have reason to be sceptical about his plan being successful in the suburbs, but if it can work anywhere then surely Central London is the place it can work? After all bus passengers are inevitably also pedestrians. And if he can’t make Oxford Street a ‘healthy street’ – somewhere actually pleasant to visit as a pedestrian, then really he might as well abandon the entire basis on which his plan for a future London rests.
Why now?
We have already partially answered the question ‘why now?’, but we can actually get down to specific dates for the introduction. There has been a lot of coverage given to the impact the opening Elizabeth line will have on the number of people using Oxford Street. Much has centred on a holistic desire to improve the areas around stations to coincide with the line’s opening. Many would regard this as an opportunity not to be missed.
It’s official! The Elizabeth line will be part of London Underground
As was the case fifty years previously, there is great concern about the pavements just not being able to handle the extra people – particularly with all the street clutter and small street stalls that are on Oxford Street. So the reason ‘why now?’ is so that a safer and more ambient pedestrian area is in place on the day that the Elizabeth line opens.
The perceived urgency of the scheme has had another potential effect and that is on the nature of the scheme. Some more drastic radical ideas have been proposed but these generally require a final plan of a long-term nature. As far as the Mayor and his supporters are concerned, these can be disregarded at the outset because they do not provide a solution quickly enough. If such schemes do have any merit then that will have to wait for another day and be compatible with the current proposals which, by then, would have already been introduced.
Creating the false argument
Somehow this concern about Oxford Street being able to handle the passengers heading in and out of Bond Street station has morphed into an argument that buses are no longer necessary because people will arrive by the Elizabeth line. This would seem to be, fairly obviously, a false argument.
The notion, as originally suggested by various studies, is that many additional people will visit Oxford Street due to more convenient journeys that will be possible once the Elizabeth line opens. Consequently, because of the size of the increase in numbers of visitors, one must do what is necessary for them to continue their journey safely once leaving the station – even if it disadvantages some existing visitors to Oxford Street.
The suggestion, which has somehow come about, is that someone who currently takes a bus to Oxford Street would, by choice, use the Elizabeth line or the Tube in future to make their journey. This is clearly a very weak argument. It would only be true for a small number of existing bus users that the Elizabeth line would justify a change of mode of transport.
Indeed, when it comes to convenience, the accessibility statement in the recent consultation itself highlights the disadvantages to those of limited mobility in not being able to catch a bus and being forced to descend and rise in the tube system. This is, of course, true for everyone – not just those of limited mobility. For a person to willingly change their travel arrangements and use the Tube or Elizabeth line instead there must be a sufficient incentive to do so.
It does seem that opponents of the scheme are using the age-old tactic of choosing an argument for pedestrianisation that they can pull apart and show to be invalid, rather than acknowledging the real reason why it may be a good idea to time Oxford Street pedestrianisation with the opening of the Elizabeth line. The opening of the Elizabeth line would appear to be the perfect opportunity to implement pedestrianisation. It would also appear to be the most sensible time to do it – when the number of pedestrians is expected to rise rapidly. Implementing pedestrianisation takes time and it is, arguably, not practical to wait until pedestrian numbers are overwhelming.
So, the argument goes, if not now then when? Or, to quote Elvis, it’s now or never.
Almost free of step-free access
Where critics of the scheme have a much stronger argument is the lack of step-free access from the existing Tube to and from Oxford Street. For those with mobility problems, the existing Tube network really does not provide a satisfactory alternative.
Most important of the lines involved is the Central line which runs along Oxford Street, yet neither Oxford Circus nor Marble Arch stations will have step-free access. More to the point, even if they did, there are very few stations on the Central line that do have step-free access (in fact, almost none).
Not much can be made of the suggestion that the Central line will not be so critical now that the Elizabeth line largely parallels it. Only three stations on the Central line, apart from stations on Oxford Street itself, will be served directly by the Elizabeth line. With Oxford Street itself largely serving east-west bus routes that will be displaced, this lack of a viable alternative to buses for those with accessibility problems is somewhat disappointing, but step-free access at Underground stations is not something you can implement quickly and it can be enormously costly.
Hostile vehicle mitigation
Something that did not really feature in the existing plans but is now treated with extreme seriousness is Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) or ‘bollards’ to most people. In the past, there has been a fair amount of cynicism in comments on this site about these recent events on Westminster and London Bridge show just how seriously this needs to be taken, however. Furthermore, the only-partly-successful terror attack at Glasgow Airport shows how effective measures can be – even when the HVM design was executed less than perfectly (they were far too close to the airport entrance).
With Oxford Street probably having the highest density of pedestrians on the street in London and very little physically present (apart from the current multitude of street clutter) to prevent some kind of attack, this is now being taken much more seriously. One has to ask if this alone would have prompted plans for pedestrianising Oxford Street if the plans weren’t already in place. It has certainly had an effect on the plans, with no longer any thought of any kind of mobility bus running along Oxford Street itself.
Arrangements will be made for emergency vehicles to continue to have access, but there has been a shift to try and avoid having to allow delivery vehicles access outside shopping hours if that can be realistically achieved without causing too much inconvenience.
Why a change of heart?
What is possibly the most difficult thing to explain about the current plans is why the City of Westminster, so long opposed to such schemes, is suddenly very supportive. They do not appear to have openly stated this, but this seems to be because this plan is not just about Oxford Street.
Uninspiring street scene just north of Oxford Street
To fully understand Westminster’s point of view, one has to appreciate that Oxford Street may be at the heart of a shopping area, but it does not represent the whole. South of Oxford Street is Bond Street and the up-market, pedestrianised South Molton Street. To the north there are a multitude of small outlets similarly catering for more up-market clientele.
Very upmarket South Molton Street
Of particular note is the delightful St Christopher’s Place, accessed from Oxford Street by a very narrow passageway in the vicinity of Bond Street station. Yet this is just one of a number of side roads emanating from Oxford Street that are probably more worthy of ‘the Oxford Street treatment’ than Oxford Street itself.
Southern end of St Christopher’s place
One strongly suspects that Westminster treats this area north of Oxford Street as a potential jewel and it is the fact that the ‘Oxford Street’ scheme aims to work positively for this area that has swayed the City of Westminster’s opinion.
A better Wigmore Street
St Christopher’s Place from Wigmore Street
In the past, Wigmore Street to the north of Oxford Street has been treated as a potential alternative to Oxford Street for traffic. In the current plans even Wigmore Street becomes more pedestrian-friendly with lights having a pedestrian phase at every junction.
Proposals for Wigmore Street including raised table
Of special note is Marylebone Lane, again much more up-market than Oxford St. The attractive part of this road is located to the north of Wigmore Street. Of particular significance is the raised table in Wigmore Street to slow traffic in order to allow pedestrians to cross safely from St Christopher’s Place to a narrow alley that leads into Marylebone Lane. A light-controlled crossing was rejected because of the sheer volume of pedestrians expected to use this route!
Continuation of Marylebone Lane just north of Wigmore Street
The south end of Marylebone Lane, which is currently far less attractive than its northern counterpart, meets Oxford Street by the new northern entrance of Bond Street station. Immediately outside the Tube station the streetscape has been improved, but really this highlights just how awful the rest of this section of the road currently is and how it could be so much better. This is important, not just as a potential walking route, but also to provide access to buses that will be running not far to the north of Bond Street Station.
Looking north from outside the north entrance of Bond Street tube station
An alternative view
The City of Westminster could almost look at this as a scheme to improve the environment north of Oxford Street, with the fact that it pedestrianises Oxford Street itself just a feature. That TfL and the Mayor will be picking up the substantial bill is, of course, an added benefit.
Unappealing streetscene in the vicinity of Bond Street tube station northern entrance
First steps to implementation
The current consultation ended on 3rd January 2018. It is a consultation not a referendum so, whatever the result, the scheme will go ahead in some form. TfL will need to start arranging minor preparatory work around Easter, with more substantial work starting in the summer. Just the logistics of implementing the scheme will be a challenge and this was something not covered by the consultation.
The consultation for the next step, pedestrianisation of the east side of Oxford Street and related local streets, is due shortly if the most recent Customer Service and Operational Report is to be believed.
Upsetting and pleasing a lot of people
There will undoubtedly be people upset and aggrieved by the implementation of the scheme. The will also be many new visitors to the area who will like what they see and experience. A lot of people expect a shift in the type of people who visit, with those who would not be seen dead on a bus quite willing to take the Elizabeth line to either the Oxford Street shops or the more upmarket ones in the surrounding area.
The City of Westminster probably has a lot riding on this scheme economically and the Mayor has effectively staked his reputation on this scheme. The scheme will have a fairly drastic effect on the West End.
The question might be: ‘Is this a worthwhile scheme and should it happen?’ but, given various environmental, health and safety concerns a better question may be: ‘in reality was there ever really a choice?’
LR is funded largely by its community. Like what we do? Then help us to do more!
Only three stations on the Central line, apart from Bond Street Station itself, will be served directly by the Elizabeth line.
Err .. four: Ealing Broadway. Tottie Court Rd, Liverpool St, Stratford.
[Reworded to exclude Tottenham Court Road PoP]
Bus ridership is almost certainly going to go on falling, anyway, for a variety of reasons [Snip PoP]
More difficult are the questions you raised:
…. [a] ‘Is this a worthwhile scheme and [b] should it happen?’ but, given various environmental, health and safety concerns a better question may be: [c]‘in reality was there ever really a choice?’
[a] Possibly, not in this form,
[b] but a worthwhile form would be really expensive & “unfashionable” ( trams, of course )
[c] Yes [Snip! LBM]
the west part of Oxford Street was restricted to all but buses, taxis, cycles and essential delivery vehicles
I assume the actual outcome was the opposite of this?
[I have reworded this in case there is any confusion as to what is intended PoP]
Greg Tingey,
The issue of trams was covered in the article although not explicitly mentioned. It is all about timing and there is no way that the decision makers would have tolerated an idea that would take years, if not decades, to implement. And that is before we look at the issue of how expensive trams are and that TfL has no significant amount of money to play with.
Furthermore, trams along Oxford Street does little to address the perceived problem. It just replaces ‘pedestrian v bus’ with ‘pedestrian v tram’ although I will concede a few tram tracks along the road would act as a helpful reminder. However the perceived problem is probably more one of hustle and bustle with too many people rather than people absent-mindedly stepping out in front of a tram.
If one puts forward a case for trams but not running along Oxford Street then there is no reason why this should not retrospectively be done. Equally this is no reason for delaying the current scheme.
There is also the problem with trams along Oxford Street that the introduction would punch a massive hole in the hostile vehicle mitigation measures – although there would be possible ways of partially addressing this.
I’m puzzled at the mirror-image road sign text in ‘Uninspiring street scene just north of Oxford Street’ but the correct signage on the Radisson hotel, or is the sign designed to be seen in a driver’s mirror?
I’m disappointed at the lack of sources for images in this and the preceeding article, I’d like to know who to blame for the dreadful application of the TfL Style Guide to that map key!
@alison
Given it’s about reversing a vehicle (or not), I imagine the text on the sign IRL is mirrored so that it can be read more easily in a vehicle’s rear-view mirror/camera.
@Alison
Google street view shows that sign, together with a non-reversed version at the side of the road. Given its message relates to reversing, it may indeed be intended to be seen in a driver’s reversing mirror. “If you can read this, you’re doing it wrong”
@Ignored Ambience
I too was intrigued by that map key, and wondered which map it came from. Of course, any entrance to a Crossrail station on Oxford Street also gives access to the Underground (although you may have a long walk), so it may just have been a way to identify such entrances by a single symbol, whilst distinguishing them from entrances which only give access to LUL. An “&” rather than a dash might have been clearer though, if that was indeed the intention.
@Ignoredambience “I’d like to know who to blame for the dreadful application of the TfL Style Guide to that map key!”
Anonymised for their own protection perhaps!! 😀
IgnoredAmbience,
In this article all photos the author. All other diagrams, maps. CGI etc are from the consultation documentation. Its the same for the previous article except for the betteroxfordstreet.org black leaflets opposing the scheme.
IgnoredAmbience, Ben
The map key can be found at the bottom left in all maps in this document on the TfL consultations website. Warning: fairly large PDF file.
Confused about the step free access point – TCR and Bond Street (and Green Park) are now step free, making any part of Oxford street within reasonable distance of a step free station.
The answer for Oxford Street is to install Ultra PRT (Personal Rapid Transport) above the road, with entrances direct at first floor level into the department stores. Cheaper and quicker than trams, complete grade seperation, and no further need for buses or taxis.
PRT is a successful UK technology, already working at Heathrow T5.
http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/how-it-works/
Geoff: There are many successful technologies which could, in principle, be used to transport people along Oxford Street at first floor level. One day one of them might be introduced there.
But the article, as it makes clear, is about things which can be achieved within the next few years. Further references to any kind of elevated solution are strongly discouraged, and may be removed.
James,
The point is that it is no use having just the destination station in Oxford Street being step free. You also need to have the origin station step-free. The trouble is, on the Central line, there are precious few of these.
Ignoring stations also served by the Elizabeth line to the west you have Greenford and to the east you have Woodford, Hainault, Roding Valley (the least used station on the Underground) and Epping. As far as I am aware, the only extra station on the Central line planned to have step-free access is Newbury Park.
@PoP: Doesn’t the Central Line have step free interchange with the District Line at Mile End (or at least without a change of level)? If so then you should add all the Eastern End of the District Line’s step free stations as well: another 7….
Granted they could also go via West Ham, but this would be more direct…
Yes, there’s cross-platform interchange between Central and District in the same directions at Mile End.
There is also a project underway to make South Woodford step-free (just a matter of adding ramps to supplement/replace an awkward four or five steps from street level up to platform on each side).
According to this there are also works underway at Newbury Park and Buckhurst Hill, with Debden planned “by 2022”.
@Phil E: And South Woodford…..
I presume there will also be step-free at Ealing Broadway, if only because of the Lizzie-line works?
Just to be pedantic, the Mayor’s draft transport strategy refers to “Healthy Streets” (https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/healthy-streets)
“Living Streets” is a campaigning organisation.
[Cheers, I’ve corrected the text and added in the link. LBM]
Plus any Greater Anglia or c2c service that stops at Stratford or West Ham now effectively has a step free route to Oxford Street.
Come to think of it, I’m struggling to think of a TOC other than Chiltern that *won’t* have a step free interchange with Crossrail or a tube that gets you to Oxford Street somewhere on its route.
The various comments about step free access to trains need clarification. LU uses “step free from street to platform” and “step free from street to train”. Clearly the latter is preferable and if it can be done with a small enough gap between train and platform all is well. On the tube lines, with the exception of the Jubilee line extension, this has been achieved with local humps in the platforms. At a few locations, portable ramps are needed, for example, if the platform is severely curved.
Central line is a challenge because it’s impossible to provide the small gap between train floor and hump even on straight platforms. all tube stock except the 1992 tube stock have sills under the doors so that sill is the widest part of the car. Central line don’t have sills so the widest point on the cars is the doors. When the doors are open the minimum possible gap is in the order of 120mm which is too wide to be easily used by wheelchairs and fails to meet the requirements of the relevant legislation for operation without “boarding aids”. This means that at all Central line stations with “step free from street to platform”, boarding aids will have to be provided. This will probably include locations like Mile End where step free interchange is nominally possible.
James – is Euston step free? Victoria is a faff because the step free isn’t in the station itself.
@Purley Dweller
No, Euston isn’t step free, fair point. I presume that will come in with the HS2 rebuild. For now Overground Passengers can change for the Bakerloo at Willesden Junction and then Crossrail at Paddington.
Oxford Street has always been a street of two halves divided by Oxford Circus. The western half benefitted from footway widening. In 1992/93 Westminster spent £20m on new street furniture which decluttered the street.
The narrower section to the east of the circus has always been the badlands. Different quality of environment and cheap tacky shops. It was blighted by Crossrail for a very long time.
‘The current consultation ended on 3rd January 2018. It is a consultation not a referendum so, whatever the result, the scheme will go ahead in some form’.
If this is so then the Mayor/TfL seem to be leaving themselves open to a Judicial Review because the alleged consultation fails the Coughlan Test. In the case of R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213 the Learned Judge ruled that ‘To be proper, consultation must be undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; it must include sufficient reasons for particular proposals to allow those consulted to give intelligent consideration and an intelligent response; adequate time must be given for this purpose; and the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account when the ultimate decision is taken’. So it appears that a consultation is not some form of box-ticking exercise and the result cannot just be disregarded.
I am of course happy to be corrected if my interpretation is wrong.
Greg Tingey,
Yes, Ealing Broadway will at least be step free to platform but, for the purposes of our discussion, that doesn’t really help because it already will have a step-free service to Oxford Street (by using the Elizabeth line).
100andthirty,
More true in the central area than the suburbs and it is from the suburbs one expects travellers to start their journey to Oxford Street.
Transport Insider Now In The Desert,
Oxford Street East (as the consultation document calls it) was also four lanes of traffic and was reduced to two lanes in a similar way some time after the initial Oxford Street West scheme back in the 1970s.
Yes, the eastern end has always historically been the tackier end but the expectation is that a new Tottenham Court Road station will change that over time. Between Christmas and New Year I walked the length of Tottenham Court Road and was shocked by how tacky that had come in my perception. Whereas Oxford Street East is tacky but busy Tottenham Court Road seems to have lost its sense of purpose..
@PoP All the old electronics/computer shops on TCR have gone bust and presumably the landlords tried to get replacement tenants in as quickly as possible, regardless of quality.
Littlejohn,
That may be true but it is going to require some very strong argument to kill the scheme – especially given the Mayor’s legal obligations over air quality and the need to minimise terrorism opportunities.
Probably more relevant, this is really a consultation about the detail. I think it is the third consultation. I suspect a case strong enough against it to stand scrutiny in the courts would have to have been made after the first consultation.
Merely because the majority of people are against it (if it were the case) is not a good enough reason for a judicial review to overturn the decision. Effectively, there has to be some substantive relevant fact not taken into account. As you say, not a mere box-ticking exercise.
Littlejohn: Interpretation of a judge’s ruling is a matter on which better-paid minds than yours or mine can be put to work.
In the quote you give, I cannot see the phrase “those consulted have a power of veto over the scheme”, or anything equivalent. Yes of course they will be open to Judicial Review (they always are with any decision whatever), and they will have to ensure that enough discussion is minuted to meet the “conscientiously taken into account” phrase. But I cannot see that PoP’s prediction that “the scheme will go ahead in some form” is seriously in doubt.
Malcolm – I didn’t suggest that consultees have the power of veto, or anything like it. The point is that the outcome of a consultation cannot be pre-determined, otherwise there is no point in having it and it becomes merely window-dressing. The text is clear (without any qualification) that ‘whatever the result, the scheme will go ahead in some form’ because ‘it is a consultation not a referendum’. No doubt the scheme will go ahead but that is because there is unlikely to be overwhelming opposition to it, in which case a referendum would have the same outcome. The reason that local referenda are rare is because of their relative additional cost and complexity not because they are likely to give a different outcome.
PoP – re a JR. You are of course right that an application for a JR has to jump a number of hurdles – eg it can only be in respect of a matter of law and in any case might still be rejected by the Court. Which is why I thought the wording worthy of comment – if a course of action is decided on in advance of a consultation it is asking to be challenged
@Littlejohn
Most consultations are not a “shall we do it, yes/no?” question but on the more complex question of “how shall we do it?” So people who raise issues over specific bus routes or stops, traffic light phasing, delivery access to premises, etc have a decent chance of being heeded, and getting the details changed.
It is always possible that some objection will be a showstopper but it is unlikely. I know of one traffic scheme which fell through because of objections from the emergency services relating to access, which the promoters were unable to resolve.
Littlejohn: sorry, my comment was based on a misunderstanding. I accept that if anyone can show that the outcome of a consultation is pre-determined by the scheme’s promoters then that would be likely to cause the consultation to be deemed a sham. But an observation by a well-informed third party (such as PoP) (not, I am pretty sure, among the scheme’s official promoters) is rather different from a pre-determination by those promoters. I understood PoP, when he wrote ‘whatever the result, the scheme will go ahead in some form’, to be expressing his own opinion, not reporting someone else’s.
@Littlejohn 11.52
So when TfL does a public consultation on bus route changes after the tender contract incorporating the changes has already been awarded…..
EVERGREENADAM. I suppose it depends on what the Consultation actually says, and what it seeks to find out. I only know that I stumbled across the Coughlan case when I was Clerk to a large, busy and pro-active Parish Council. I was researching in advance of a Public Enquiry into a Unitary Authority’s housing plan. I played the Coughlan card at the Enquiry and the Planning Inspector initially ruled it to be irrelevant. It took the combined intercession of three QCs (all representing different interests) to persuade him that it was very relevant and the Authority eventually had to go away and resubmit its proposals.
Very intrigued by the constant discussion on level or step free access to/from Oxford Street eg Crossrail. Its all well discussing it as if its some fantastic leveller situation that will make everybody’s lives so much more manageable.
Let us remember it in fact will impose incredible distances upon those who have disabilities or otherwise. For example buses stop right outside Selfridges (its just one example there are others too okay) and those with mobility limitations can at least go straight from the bus into the store.
This step-free access in future will be attained from the nearest station, Bond Street. There’s a lengthy traverse thence towards Selfridges. And the same going back.
At least far more parts of Oxford Street are served by public transport now than they will be in future.
Instead of facilitating ease of access the scheme, for all its merits its going to impose penalties on those who have limited mobility so it has to be in fact discriminatory to some extent.
Until that is resolved I do not think this scheme should go ahead in any form. It is no good saying Wigmore Street is going to have all the bells & whistles, its still a long way for some.
Nobody should be pursuing any pedestrianisation on a large scale nor withdrawing the buses completely until someone can at least get their head around the huge problem of a lack of proper alternative streets around Oxford Street.
How does Oxford St compare with shopping malls like Westfield or Bluewater for step-free accessibility? Walking distances can still be huge even if all on the level. There will still be bus stops near the department stores on Oxford St, just not directly outside the front door.
Personally I think Oxford St is hellish, and pedestrianisation may improve it considerably. Other cities manage perfectly well with pedestrianised main streets, and Oxford St should not be considered a special snowflake.
I’m all for pedestrianisation and just like where it has happened elsewhere in the UK and abroad, people will get used to it. I’m slightly nervous about the prospect of how badly managed and how overspent will be the re-paving project when it eventually happens. I bet it’ll take donkeys years!
@CHRISMITCH
“How does Oxford St compare with shopping malls like Westfield or Bluewater for step-free accessibility”
Westfield in Stratford is 100% accessible. There are lifts everywhere, including the car parks.
Stratford station, Stratford International station and Stratford International DLR station are all step-free access into Westfield.
However if you arrive at Stratford station only some lines (Jubliee, DLR) are fully “street to train”, rather than “street to platform”.
For accessibility, comparing an established area like Oxford Street with a new development like Westfield is not particularly helpful. The two have different attributes, but no-one at all is inconvenienced by the opening of a brand new centre – because previously there was nothing. Whereas when Oxford Street is pedestrianised, some existing users will lose out.
It can be argued that their loss is not very great, and/or is more than compensated by the advantages of the scheme, and/or is inevitable. But losers there are.
Is there a case for the provision of small electric transporters such as are used at, for example, Euston station to get mobility impaired folk from/to stations, so they don’t have a long hike to shops such as Selfridges?
Mobility buggies would quickly proliferate if allowed.
I visited the supposedly car-free town of Zermatt in Switzerland recently, and the place is overrun with electric buggies, making crossing the street just as hazardous as any normal road. The electric buggies help with pollution and mobility, but not with congestion or road safety.
Chrismitch. I dont think Zermatt is comparable (neither are Wengen, Kleine Scheidegg, Murren, Allmendhubel or any other Swiss towns/villages high up in the mountains and totally isolated.) They are living communities and its not just people (disabled for example) that need transport but businesses, people working, even perishables, foods, goods needing to be delivered from the nearest rail or cable car station.
Malcolm. I agree with your points. The problem is what do we do with the ‘losers?’ What do the authorities say then. “You could access Oxford Street before and now you can’t? Well that’s just too bad!” That would be a breach of law (definitely DDA1995/EA2010, possibly even human rights.)
ROG,
I think you have misunderstood the Equality Act 2010 but, equally, I may be wrong.
I think it is irrelevant to argue that those with limited mobility are disadvantaged compared with before (assuming that notion is accepted). What I think you need to show is that those with limited mobility are disadvantaged to a greater extent than those will full mobility.
Also, you can’t just take the negatives. For example, those with mobility scooters (assuming they can get there in the first place) or in wheelchairs will greatly benefit from the level surface along Oxford Street and the increased space available for pedestrians. So if, overall, those with restricted mobility are not worse off and every reasonable effort has been made to mitigate the disadvantages there shouldn’t be a problem with the act.
As a lady from the DfT once said regarding equality on public transport “all we offer is equality of misery”. Basically she is saying that those with restricted mobility (or any other group) should be in no worse a situation that someone without access issues. it doesn’t mean their ‘rights’ should be protected more than any other group.
I don’t think I mis-understand the EA, it may be just that us (the disabled) have a different interpretation of it (and personal experience of how it is applied.)
Its not just about wheelchairs/mobility scooters. There are those with very limited mobility who just can’t use a wheelchair or mobility scooter. (People might say well they should have a carer with them. Perhaps but some may want to be independent of carers – or are forced to go without carers because PIP says no.)
ROG,
Fully understand it is not just about wheelchairs/mobility scooters. It is effectively about everyone.
How about turning the situation on its head and imagine what would happen if Oxford Street were traffic free and proposals were made to allow buses, taxis and cycles along it? We would have various groups such as epileptics complaining they felt less safe. Some of the mental health pressure groups would complain that those without good cognitive awareness of their surroundings would be put at needless risk.
No doubt there would also be claims that traffic congestion along Oxford Street would prevent ambulances getting to patients quickly.
Asthmatics would complain about the poorer air quality and how it would seriously affect both their health and risk of dying. Indeed, they are probably one group who could actually provide some decent data to back up their claims. The problem is it is largely an invisible disability so more likely not to be taken as seriously as it should be. Who knows what proportion of people using Oxford St today have a breathing problem and to what extent the situation would be improved by removing traffic? Or even the number of people with a breathing problem who do not currently visit Oxford St because of the traffic fumes.
You can’t please all the people all the time. Some groups are bound to gain and others are bound to lose out. If you have done everything reasonably possible and overall it benefits those with equality issues then surely that is an improvement that should go forward.
so no bikes allowed? I would have thought this would be a good opportunity for the Sadiq Sycles to have their day allowing riders to cycle from one end to the other? The bikes have baskets so made for shopping. Oxford street is a VERY wide road and could accommodate a cycle path. So the bikes will have to compete with the narrow roads around Oxford St to get from West to East and vice versa. That wont be much fun. As a matter on interest why are there not more cycle hoops to lock up bikes to along the road? Clearly some one doesn’t like cyclists?
I agree that a reasonable interpretation of the equalities act cannot be that no person with a disability can legally ever be made worse off by any changes to anything at any time.
Airports might provide a useful model. Provision varies, but the common feature seems to be that if you cannot do the necessary walking, you will be carried, but whether that is in a golf-buggy with an official driver and flashing beacons, or your own wheelchair, or an airport wheelchair, or a flying carpet (!) is at the airport’s discretion. Something similar could be arranged in a shopping centre, except of course that it raises the knotty question of who is to pay for it.
C Calver. At the risk of opening a hornets nest, the total absence of cycling provision in the proposal is causing lots of fur to fly in cycling forums.
A certain Mr A Gilligan makes the accusation that this mayor “talks the talk” on increasing cycle provision but is actually delivering zero. Just north of here, he has emaciated the proposals for CS11 through Regents Park – everyone bar taxi drivers is frustrated. There is much I disagree with Mr Gilligan about, but I think there is truth in his assertion.
POP Did I say I was totally against the scheme?
ROG –
I don’t, actually, think it is necessarily the case that the scheme makes shops less accessible, but it certainly will require people to adopt different plans and strategies for successfully completing their journey. In this, people with mobility impairments are no different than all visitors to Oxford St.
In your example of a bus stop near Selfridges that offers a viable route to Selfridges to some people some of the time. The degree to which that is true for anyone individual is dependent on where they start their journey, what they need to take with them, the capacity of the network, the cost, the number of changes they need to make to end up on a bus that stops at that specific stop, any impairments they have and of course, this is all assuming that Selfridges actually happens to be the one and only place they would like to go, forsaking all other preferences.
All this remains true in the new design, but anyone individual may find the new design makes it easier or harder (or the same) for them to achieve their objectives. EA is relevant to all this, but it is unlikely to be relevant in the sense of an individual and a specific journey, but rather how the costs and benefits of changes have been weighed, and what the overall picture for accessibility and provision looks like and how different types of users have been considered in the overall design. For that, the real proof will be in the pudding, If they are doing it right, TFL will have given themselves some slack to learn and improve the scheme once its implemented; no doubt some perspectives will have been missed and some real world impacts will not have been modelled.
I happen to think that many people will find this makes Oxford Street more accessible. Ultimately, if your user need is to buy a specific item and return home, then you will probably choose to just buy it online (and are probably doing that now already as going to Oxford St is horrible) … but if what you want is accessibility to a ‘shopping experience’ surely this is going to offer higher quality and be at least no worse in terms of accessibility for 99.9% of people?
Hayes Cyclist: I was nodding sagely most of the way through your comment, until I came to the very last sentence. The use of “99.9%” makes it look as if you believe that people with difficulty walking any distance are (a) one in a thousand, and (b) do not really matter. I’m sure you do not really believe either of these things, let alone that they are connected, but the use of such wild figures is reminiscent of the kind of stereotyping which the equalities act, and similar developments, are movements away from.
Despite being a keen cyclist and a proponent of cycle infrastructure I actually support the complete ban of cycling on Oxford Street.
Pedestrians freely amble all over cycle lanes that carry no other traffic – for example the East West cycle superhighway is frequently full of joggers.
On a mainly pedestrian shopping street the effect would be 1000 times worse and anyone attempting to use a cycle lane on Oxford Street would find it a frustrating and slow experience.
But, if there was a cycle lane (however useless), TfL would feel no pressure to provide good cycling provision on parallel streets.
A good example of this is Park Lane – the North-South cycle lane through the park is very slow and contested with pedestrians. But, because it exists, there are no realistic proposals to remove general traffic capacity from Park Lane to provide proper cycle lanes.
@Bob
I sometimes think we forget that there are always different types of cyclists in any location in advocating a single solution for cyclists. Typically this may be that there are confident, experienced and relatively fast cyclists making a longer journey and less confident or experienced cyclists just making a very local journey. I doubt of there will be many of the latter on Oxford Street but there will be a distinction between those making a longer journey on an east-west axis who may well have no business in Oxford Street, and those who are seeking a destination on Oxford Street. For the former, good provision on neighbouring streets is essential and I agree with Bob about that. However provision must also be made for cyclists to access shops and properties on Oxford Street. This doesn’t necessarily mean a dedicated cycle lane along Oxford Street. It might mean something coming off adjacent cross streets. But it will not work if people just say ‘let them push their bikes on the pedestrianised section’.
Quinlet: Absolutely. But people have always been unable to take bikes into shops, so what is already required, and will still be required after pedestrianisation, is cycle parking places within a sensible walking distance of the relevant shops. These should probably not be in Oxford Street itself, but close by, quite possibly at the ends of some of the cross streets which are or will be cul-de-sacced. And/or near the back door of shops (typically already having road access for deliveries). Such things may be already in place or already planned.
Malcolm: your suggestion also sticks to the sensible principle of giving pedestrians the direct route, cyclists the (slightly) longer route, and motorised traffic the most circuitous journey.
Since even slow cyclists travel at twice the speed of pedestrians you can afford to send then a bit further.
What’s ridiculous is sending bikes or pedestrians on a roundabout route so that cars can keep a direct alignment (for example at park lane).
The other factor to consider is that “no cycling” rules are unlikely to be enforced on slow and considerate cyclists at quiet times of the day. Plenty of people use the banned sections of the South Bank as a cycle route in the morning with no noticeable disruption. It’s a very different story at 4pm… For good reason!
@bob
“Pedestrians freely amble all over cycle lanes that carry no other traffic – for example the East West cycle superhighway is frequently full of joggers.
On a mainly pedestrian shopping street the effect would be 1000 times worse and anyone attempting to use a cycle lane on Oxford Street would find it a frustrating and slow experience.”
To see how it shouldn’t be done, look at Kingston Market Place, through which passes the only north-south cycle route across the town centre (part of the national Cycle network, no less!). The problems are compounded by inadequate signposting, thus ensuring that most shoppers are totally oblivious that cyclists may be passing through there quite legally, with the inevitable conflicts that result.
Pedestrians and cyclists don’t mix well – in particular anyone who has ridden a bike will know there is a minimum speed below which a bike becomes very difficult to control.
“Cyclists dismount” is a last resort and is rarely helpful. (You don’t tell bus passengers to get out and push when a bus lane is suspended). And a person wheeling a cycle actually takes up more width.
@Bob
If cycling along the South Bank is acceptable in the morning, it’s far better to allow it at that time, rather than just turn a blind eye to infringements of a prohibition. That way both cyclists and pedestrians know where they stand and prevents incidents on the route. The same is true more generally, and will apply to Oxford Street, too. There are quite a number of shops which don’t have rear access or public access anywhere but on Oxford Street (particularly the eastern section). Good cycle parking will be essential, reasonably close to all those shops, not just on side streets.
I can’t see a good reason to say ‘no cycle parking on Oxford Street. Cycles are about half the length of the width of a traffic lane. There are currently two traffic lanes. So even a continuous cycle park (which I am NOT advocating) would take up only about a quarter of the current two lanes of traffic and would be much less of a barrier to cross-street pedestrian traffic than a series of buses.
Something that gave me wry amusement about the consultation documents was the examples of cycle storage that were regarded as street clutter and interfered with desired sight lines. Yet, I suspect in consultation for the second phase of the scheme we will have montages of cycle storage all put in a positive light ‘helping achieve access for all’, ‘encouraging the Mayor’s policy on healthy living’ etc.
RayK: In my view cycle parking for any pedestrian area should only be at the edge of said area. You should be able to cycle up to within, say twenty metres of it – or ideally 20 cm. Putting the parking deeper in risks people cycling or scooting to it, further clutter of “cyclists dismount” signs, and no time gain whatever to the law-abiding cyclist, who could more easily do the walk unencumbered.
Most cycle parking is just badly designed street clutter!
What central London really needs is Japanese style underground cycle parking http://road.cc/content/news/143335-video-tokyo%E2%80%99s-subterranean-robot-cycle-parking-facility
What it’ll get, is badly designed stands positioned in quiet areas, not covered by CCTV, so thieves have plenty of time to work on your locks.
That’s very good. I would have been even more impressed if it had turned the bike round too!
@Bob – One small comment – If this (London) were to be like Japan, it is highly unlikely that a bike owner would need a lock. As my Japanese pal said when I borrowed his bike for a week in Tokyo and asked where the lock was, he answered “Why do you want a lock? Everyone who wants a bike has one – why would they need another!?” With that, I happily left the bike parked on main roads, including overnight, without fear of theft. No CCTV required, either.
@Bob: Don’t worry bike thieves in London don’t quiet little side streets. They will nick bikes in plain sight in Southampton St just off the Strand.
I’m somewhat sceptical that Crossrail will make a vast difference to the number of people visiting Oxford Street to shop, when so many vast shopping malls have sprung up in recent years AND retailers face the threat of online shopping.
Indeed for all the people who come to Oxford Street because of the pedestrianisation, there will be those put off due to their bus routes being terminated short/diverted.
Re Mikey C,
Secondary impact of online growth – Plenty of evidence that some food outlets in the shopping malls can’t make the numbers add up and are closing. (and more will).
The UK and South Korea lead the world in terms of the market share of online shopping so non UK-based retail property investors may not appreciate the pressure retailers are under.
M&S citing lack of carparking as the main reason for most of their store closures announcement as customers buy less if they aren’t driving. I have the feeling that retailers would like cycle parking because cyclist are probably less likely to buy as much as there is a limited amount you can get in rucksack or panniers.
“M&S citing lack of carparking as the main reason for most of their store closures”
Oh for heavens sake – have they really said that? Nothing to do with M&S management inability to stock the goods at prices that customers want to buy???? Bangs head against wall in frustration.
Re IslandDweller,
They most certainly have, the 14 stores earmarked for closure are apparently performing worse because the average size of customer purchase is much smaller because there is poor or no parking* compared to their other stores.
*e.g. Putney earmarked for closure with no parking and the only near by parking being in an inaccessible multi-storey for a nearby shopping centre (infested with SUV drivers doing their weekly shopping in Waitrose who give you free parking if you spend enough)
Not having the product customers want applies to all M&S stores!
I think your Putney SUV driver is a completely different demographic to your Oxford Street shopper…
Perhaps M&S need to look at the demographic they are targeting instead?
I think M&S needs to do much more work to understand their customers. All the objective surveys (based on real data as opposed to opinions), particularly for those shoppers in London’s high streets and town centres, show that people coming by bus or on foot spend much more than those coming by car. Moreover, in choosing where to shop, parking is one of the least important factors. Retail offer, local environmental quality and immediate convenience are far more important. London Councils has The Means do a review of all the evidence a few years ago. It’s still on their website and worth reading.
In a true urban environment it is far easier to shop every other day than a large weekly or less frequent shop.. Little and often flying visits on the way past Sainsburys / M&S etc. between the tube and home.
After all we are meant to be thinking of the “new” trend of non car ownership in the centre and inner suburbs.
I assume that the majority of people don’t do their “main” foodshop in the Oxford Street M&S stores, but rather they use them to buy supplementary items. It’s hardly convenient to take massive bags of food shopping home on the tube or bus from zone 1!
To me there’s a big divide between inner and outer London in shopping habits, once you get out to zone 3(ish), then big weekly shops with the car become much more common.
Back when I lived more centrally, it was a little shop every few days. With a large (car using) trip every two weeks or so. I tried the big shop by tube to S’bugs at New Cross Gate or Whitechapel, but the stairs are a real killer.
I guess now the two weekly would be done as a home delivery, but that was not so easy back then.
Now in zone 6, it’s a weekly shop…. 😉
In addition to convenience supermarkets, there has been a large increase in meal delivery services like Deliveroo and Uber Eats, for people who want to cook, there are recipe box delivery services like Gousto and HelloFresh and for people who don’t want to trudge around supermarkets there are many grocery delivery services as well.
Certainly in central parts of London, I’d have thought the big weekly shop would be in decline.
R953 & others
Shopping patterns have certainly changed – there has been, in many parts of suburban (zones 2-4 or 5) London a partial (at least) reversion to the 1950’s or earlier, because there are now more local shops of a better quality, re-occupying many small streets that were emptied during the great supermarket boom 1960-2008. Also, many of the bigger chains also have “local shops” as well as the big “Super”-stores.
Certainly, now, I only take the vehicle for a big shop less than once a month, for articles which are bulky & are more conveniently carried in a car. { Mineral Water, Bog Roll, Cat Food] or are specialist to that store [ A particular butter brand in my case ]
For the rest, & like a lot of the locals around me, I’m now popping round the corner, on foot, to the much-more-upmarket local convenience store.
And, it’s obvious from the custom visible in such places, that a lot of other people are doing this.
If M&S haven’t spotted this, then they’ve lost the plot.
You mention the “delivery services” -I wonder how much their rise is affecting local traffic congestions or lack of it?
This not a blanket ban on discussing shopping habits but remember to keep it relevant to its effects on transport in London.
We don’t want this generating into a discussion of our individual shopping patterns unless they are relevant to something transport-related.
@Greg Tingey – In the case of restaurant delivery services, they seem to use bikes or mopeds so while some may find their driving habits annoying, I don’t think they are causing congestion.
For deliveries to homes, I don’t have any evidence to support this but I’d have thought a van doing drop offs to an area would be preferable to the residents driving to the supermarket although now there may be multiple vans for all sorts of deliveries.
The GLA commissioned a study recently on the causes of congestion in London and unsurprisingly they are many and varied.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/understanding-and-managing-congestion-in-london.pdf
Incredible. In a long article and almost 80 comments at the time of re-reading, the topic of the effect on the streets around Oxford Street hasn’t been raised. The taxis displaced from Oxford Street will be belching out their particulates etc. in the narrower surrounding roads. The same number of taxis (they’re hardly going to disappear) squashed into a smaller space and therefore most likely travelling even more slowly isn’t going to reduce air pollution is it? It’ll just slightly benefit the lungs of shoppers at the expense of the lungs of residents and local workers. A mayor truly concerned about air quality would have prioritised electrifying the taxi fleet – and be making more effort to stop them keeping their engines running when not moving – and would only pedestrianise Oxford Street once a significant proportion were running cleanly.
I smell a strong waft of vanity project running through the “need” for pedestrianisation to be carried out with such haste.
@Morena
Taxis won’t be belching out any particulates soon. All new London taxis have to be “zero emission” from the beginning of this year. It will of course take a while for all the old ones to disappear.
And some of the taxis may indeed disappear from the area – people may change their habits if taxis are not available at the very door of the shop – of course it may go the other way with people switching to taxis if they no longer have a direct bus.
timbeau,
I agree with you. I really can’t see multitudes of cabbies cruising around the Wigmore St area in the hope of being flagged down. Far more likely they will head for an opportune taxi rank close to one of the major department stores and wait for the customer to come to them. This though won’t support most of the taxis currently cruising up and down Oxford Street and I believe the majority will leave the area to see better pickings elsewhere.
Curiously, on my various excursions to Oxford Street I say loads of taxis plying for hire but very rarely indeed did I see anyone board or alight them.
Where I think TfL are seriously missing a trick is the failure to provide any electric taxi recharging points (it is TfL’s responsibility) in the Oxford Street area to encourage taxis to be clean and to wait rather than pointlessly cruise around. They can always abort recharging if a customer turns up.
And yes I do know providing charging decent points for taxis isn’t easy and is problematic but they will have to face up to it eventually so why not now?
@timbeau
The rules are only that new taxis have too be ‘zero emission capable’ from the start of this year. This isn’t the same as ‘zero emission’ as it includes plug-in hybrids, for example. And there’s no guarantee that the taxis will be running in electric mode at any time. That doesn’t, however, detract from the main thrust of both yours and PoP’s comments that with Oxford Street pedestrianised there’s likely to be a significant reduction in taxi numbers in the area.
@Quinlet
Even when running in infernal combustion mode, the zero-emission capable taxis will emit fewer particulates than their diesel predecessors, because the rules require the range extender to be petrol. (From the beginning of this year, “taxis presented for licensing for the first time need to be ZEC. This means having CO2 emissions of no more than 50g/km and a minimum 30 mile zero emission range
A first-time taxi vehicle licence will no longer be granted to a diesel taxi. ZEC taxis with petrol engines will need to meet the latest emissions standard (currently Euro 6)”)
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/cleaner-greener-taxis
Given that taxis do such a lot of stop-start driving, ideal for hybrid operation, and that hybrid technology has been on the market now for nearly twenty years, the change is long overdue.
@Morena
This objection to improving walking/cycling/public transport comes up a lot – to summarise the argument in one sentence I would state it as: “If a change slows down private traffic or causes congestion, that’ll increase polution, which is bad.”
However this argument is over simplistic. Increasing journey times reduces the number of people who want to drive, which reduces the number of trips, which may (or may not!) decrease overall pollution levels despite each individual trip causing more emissions.
Arguments about disabled drivers are a similarly over-exercised red-herring. There are so few blue badges (4.3% of the population in 2016) you could (and we should!) happily give every blue badge holder permission to drive wherever they like and it would create almost no issues – provided you ban the able bodied from being so unbelievably lazy that they chose to drive 400 meters to the shops.
Re PoP,
“This though won’t support most of the taxis currently cruising up and down Oxford Street and I believe the majority will leave the area to see better pickings elsewhere.”
Well the problem is that many of the other lucrative areas are also under attack with Crossrail when it opens fully probably putting bit of dent in the Heathrow taxi traffic and Uber everywhere.
Indeed. Times will probably start to get very hard for taxi and private hire vehicles and it will be interesting to see how they respond to this.
We seem to be in a situation currently where fuel is relatively cheap and parking either limited (black cabs) or expensive (Uber + friends). So a favoured tactic is to cruise the streets. In the case of black cabs this is in the hope of being flagged down. In the case of Uber it is to ‘hang about’ in an area where they expect their next fare. Worse still, because private hire vehicles are often hybrid, it make sense for them to head to congested area where they can sit in queue of traffic.
None of this makes sense as this is completely unnecessary congestion to the disadvantage of the many caused by taxi and private hire vehicles doing what is logically most profitable to them.
What closing Oxford St to taxis does is remove their favourite cruise area. Maybe, along with other downturns in business, it will be realised that really we are just licencing too many black cabs in central London and that the system for private hire vehicles has to be changed so they are not incentivised to unnecessarily take up road space.
PoP
Might I suggest one very small amendment to what you just said?
it will be realised that really we are just licencing too many
blackcabs in central London and ….With that I would agree – provided, & coming back to the sub-text of the main article – that there is sufficent road public transport also available – which means, erm, buses.
Greg Tingey,
But not necessarily. Crossrail may well take away the bulk of the journeys in different forms. Taxis may still be popular for those with shopping or suitcases but not for the entire journey to either Oxford Street or Heathrow. As road travel speeds get slower people may simply choose to walk – which is the Mayor’s preferred option.
And, dare I say it, all my recent experiences in London suggest that the existing bus service could cope with a massive increase in the number of passengers.
“we are just licencing too many black cabs in central London”
It does strike me that successive mayors, and TfL, have always given the Hackney carriage trade a relatively easy ride. Why has it taken twenty years to insist on hybrid (ZEV) cabs? Why are they still allowed to clog up bus lanes, when they are no more efficient users of road space than any other car (whether or not it is hired, and whether or not it is chauffeur-driven). (An MPV with seven people on board is a much more efficient user of road space than a taxi with but a single passenger). The recent Addison-Lee court case (asking for a level playing field on bus lanes) never really addressed this issue. The specious argument by the judge that “There is a clear distinction between the need of black cabs (and their passengers and the public) for them to be in the bus lanes, by way of visibility and availability of, and access to, black cabs for those hailing a cruising taxi” only justifies them being allowed to enter a bus lane for the specific purpose of picking up or dropping off a fare.
I recall reading about the enormous amount of taxi use London’s mayors (of both parties) claim on expenses (peaking at more than £5000 in 2001/02 – you could buy three annual Travelcards for that……………). Should the person ultimately responsible for public transport not show more faith in it, and not resort to “going private” quite so often?
timbeau,
Equally, should the person ultimately responsible for the licensing of taxis not be fully aware, as an end user, of exactly what service they provide?
Whilst Ken Livingstone was a known proliferate user of taxis he was also a proliferate user of the tube.
I’m not sure that arbitrarily limiting the number of any form of taxi is actually going to be successful, either in congestion terms or for users. Taxi fares are already high (I no longer use black cabs because of their exorbitance) and limiting numbers will just push prices up – initially at the Uber/private hire end of the market but black cab drivers will be keen to follow.
It must be questionable if cab drivers (of any sort) can actually make money if they just cruise around, or sit in jams, without getting a hire. If they pick up hires quickly then they are not going to contribute to congestion that much. I would actually let the market operate for taxis. If there are too many then drivers will not make money and some will leave, either for other parts of London or for other trades. High costs of taxis combined with slow journeys by way of congestion will not be attractive to that many.
“If there are too many then drivers will not make money and some will leave, . High costs of taxis will not be attractive to that many.”
It wold take many years for that to work through though – most of the costs of being a cabbie are paid up front – doing the Knowledge and buying the vehicle. They can’t afford to stop working until that’s all paid for – and the less quickly the money flows in, the longer that will take.
timbeau: you may be straying near the “sunk costs fallacy” here. Of course many taxi drivers may well have big debts for the reason you give, but the rational course of action is to service those debts by carrying out the most profitable activity possible, whether or not that activity is connected with how the debts were incurred. If pushing electrons around pays better than deploying The Knowledge, that is what some (at least) will do.
TfL consultation report now available:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/oxford-street/
@ Reynolds 953 – it is worth noting that TfL haven’t actually set out any next steps yet. The report is really just a summary of how people responded. I understand that massive bus network changes (cuts) are due on 1 September so we can expect substantive work to begin then. In the latest TfL board papers there is a reference to junction works already being done on Wigmore Street – presumably in preparation for Oxford St’s closure – with completion due in May 2018. Speaks volumes about the value of “consultation” when, regardless of the findings, work is ongoing to implement the project anyway.
@ Walthamstow Writer – my default assumption is to assume consultation exercises are merely camaflage. Management has already determined what is best and any consultees views which don’t fit this picture must be wrong, ill informed etc and can be ignored. I know there are some cases where the project team completely misunderstand the level of wrath their proposals have and beat an undignified retreat until of course sufficient time has passed to permit the original proposal (with appropriate new window dressing) to go forward again. More rarely having had fingers comprehensively burnt the proposal is reformulated to take account of consultation feedback but I fear the tacit assumption for most consultation exercises is that the scheme will always go forward with minuscule changes.
Richard B
I am horribly afraid you are correct. [Minor snip. PoP]
However, I note two things from the proposals which, I suspect, are going to cause grief.
1. Only one bus-service along/parallel to Oxford St – the 390. Unless one is run about every 2 minutes, they are going to be packed & heaving ( Yes/No? ).
1a. “The boss” took one look & said: “And how are people from the City going to get convenient buses to Oxford St, then?” [ Preferable to the tube if not in a hurry. ]
2. It was noted that very few cyclists use Oxford St at present, which is not a suprise. But that, when fully pedestrianised, cyclists would be prohibited from using the area.
Well, very good luck with that one, is all I can say.
Walthamstow Writer,
Sorry but you appear to be either twisting facts, which is my pet hate, or accusing the commissioner of lying in his report.
To quote
The wording seems quite clear. These new crossings are part of an independent scheme that would have gone ahead regardless of the result of the consultation.
Greg Tingey,
You have clearly not been reading part 1 where most of the comment would have been more appropriate.
1. There will be two routes paralleling Oxford St – the 139 and the 390
1a. There will be other services from the City direction terminating at Oxford Circus. Putting it another way, what route could ‘the boss’ now use that she won’t be able to after the consultation?
And I suspect that most people from the City in the vicinity of Liverpool St/Moorgate would actually find three stops on Crossrail quicker and more convenient than by bus. And even if only some did, that would help reduce bus usage and mean space present on the ones remaining.
2. I strongly suspect the cycling ban will be self-enforcing even if they all were of they type that you seem to think they are. They would soon realise it is harder and slower to get through a well-used pedestrianised street. And actually, they would be very vulnerable to any pedestrians who might take exception to their presence. And that is before you take into account that if there were to be a real problem it would be easy to crack down on it.
PoP
I was speaking of all the way to/from Tyburn Tree to Tottie Ct Rd or further East, & the 139 doesn’t ….
Bus routes madam uses at present? 8 / 25 / 242 – except it appears the 242 has already been cut back. To use the Liz-line she would have to walk NNW to the Barbican entrance at “Farringdon”, crossing London Wall, or back ENE to Moorgate & then emerge, probably in Hanover Sq … by which time the bus would have got here there, from directly outside the office …
You might have a point about the lycra-cyclists though 😁
Greg Tingey,
Er. So have the 8 and 25 so in fact no worse than today.
My original question stands.
@Greg
Neither the No 25 nor the 242 (nor the latter’s antecedent, the 22) has ever run to Marble Arch, and the No 8 hasn’t done so for a quarter of century, and It is nearly ten years since the No 8 has ventured west of Oxford Circus.
The No 25 originally ran to Victoria via Bond Street, but hasn’t run west of Oxford Circus since 1992, when the section via Bond St to Victoria was replaced by the No 8, whose western terminus had until then been Willesden – the western half of Route 8 became the No 98.
The No 8 was itself cut back from Victoria to Oxford Circus (replaced by the C2 and later the 22) in 2009, and to Tottenham Court Road in 2013
The 242 has never run west of Tottenham Court Road. It was introduced in 1992 to replace the 22B, (which ran to Piccadilly Circus, not Oxford Circus and was itself a result of splitting the 22 in 1987). The 242 was cut back to St Pauls in 2017.
There were other routes between the City and Oxford Street via Holborn (No 7) or the Strand (6 and 13), but the 7 and 13 were curtailed in 1970 and the 6 in 1992.
That left just the 23 (Liverpool Street to Westbourne Park, via the Strand and Oxford Street), which was cut back to the Aldwych in 2017.
(I omitted the 15, which also ran via the Strand and Oxford Street, but was cut back to Oxford Circus in 2010 and Trafalgar Square in 2013).
The cynics’ view that consultation is just a sham is not really justified. Having conducted many consultation exercises in my lifetime, of course your start out with what you think is the best proposal. But responses are important as they may highlight either things you haven’t thought about, issues you may not be aware of or, at the cynical best, highlight arguments that will be put forward in opposition. In my experience many of the proposals I have put forward for consultation have been modified in light of the responses. I suspect TfL would say just the same. But, at the same time, the overwhelming majority of responses will have been anticipated and debated in advance.
When the Dart Charge system was about to be introduced, the proposal was that you would have up to midnight to pay. Chargeable hours are up to 10pm, so that gave potentially only two hours to find a payment point. In the consultation exercise I (and probably others) objected that this was unreasonably short, (especially at that time of night) and sure enough in the system that was eventually introduced the time in which you can pay expires at midnight the following day.
@Timbeau
Always dangerous to take us off down memory lane like that. Your comment brought immediate fond memories of the 8 terminating at Neasden (Dog Lane) – near my aunt’s house – and the 6 at Kensal Rise station – near my grandparents’ house. The destinations they rolled the blinds around to – Old Ford and Hackney Wick respectively – were faraway places of which I knew little. But both were good illustrations of the cross-centre routes of that era.
Jim R
Timbeau
The 25 has never run to Marble Arch? Quite incorrect. In its last years of working beyond Oxford Circus to Victoria the evening journeys in the eastbound direction were via Park Lane and Marble Arch.
(The westbound journeys to Victoria continued via Bond Street.)
Mea culpa – but even then, you couldn’t get a 25 from Holborn to Marble Arch
Here’re the timeline histories of the 8:
http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/_routes/current/008.html
and the 25:
http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/_routes/current/025.html
I certainly used the 25 between High Holborn and Victoria via New Bond Street itself to Piccadilly (the route was split part way along that latter stretch along one-way streets).
The Oxford Street Pedestrianisation Consultation has reopened.
Due to an incorrect email address being given, people could not submit their responses. Hence the recently published interim report has been taken down.
There’s a new deadline of 6th April to submit any responses. These will be considered within a new interim report to be published later.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/oxford-street/?cid=oxford-street
……and now Westminster council has put a spanner in the works by suspending work.
http://www.cityam.com/284838/fresh-doubt-cast-over-oxford-street-pedestrianisation
Anyone would think there were local council elections next week.
If pedestrianisation doesn’t happen, is it too late to backtrack on the bus changes or have the contracts already been let with the operators?
@ Timbeau – I have to say I laughed out loud with delight at WCC suspending the work. The politics around this in Westminster have long been difficult and I am not overly surprised to see this happen. Yes there are local elections and anyone with their eyes and ears open would have realised this and the potential for things to go sour. I also wonder quite what has been going on between the London Mayoralty and WCC for things to have proceeded this far but for the scheme (and I assume options) to be rejected. This suggests to me that the parties have not been on “the same page” for a long while.
I understand that TfL issued instructions to bus companies for changes to routes a while ago despite there being no consultation results on the changes. The plan was to make changes on 1 September. That can’t be possible now. Several route proposals / new contracts have been on hold due to purdah and other issues. Routes 9, 10, 23 and 94 are four where there are evidently problems. The current election purdah doesn’t help matters but that should lift within a week or so. Crossrail bus changes elsewhere in London, linked to the December 2018 core opening, are similarly delayed with no contracts awarded yet and if new vehicles are required then manufacturers may struggle to build and deliver new buses given there is the annual summer factory break to take into account,
The more telling remark is the TfL response quoted in the Standard – very much “we will keep going and will do what the Mayor wants” regardless of what Westminster have said. I don’t see how you pedestrianise Oxford St and have NO traffic impact on the surrounding area in order to keep residents and businesses in the area set back from Oxford St happy. Knowing TfL they will simply hack the bus network back even more so no routes have extra off street stands or run via Wigmore St and s** the consequences.
Looks like the pedestrianisation plan has been completely killed off by Westminster City Council (Tom Edwards of the BBC has been reporting on this today). They have rejected full pedestrianisation and are demanding any further proposals comply with their “8 principles”. One of which is no additional traffic to be diverted to adjacent local streets – that stymies any proposal to reroute buses. I wonder if TfL will just scrap buses on Oxford St altogether regardless of the consequences in order to achieve other plans they have.
@WW: I think this is a grave error on their part. Oxford Street is competing against warm and dry suburban shopping centres and if the economic indicators are right, a large downturn in shopping is slowly gathering pace.
Madness!
WW
Link to short BBC article here
There is more to Westminster than shopping in Oxford Street. It’s not as if Oxford Street is the golden goose for the council. Indeed most of the shopworkers won’t live in the borough anyway.
The streets around Oxford Street have plenty of other successful businesses (professional firms, private medical, hedge funds etc) and plenty of rich residents. It’s not unreasonable for their interests to be taken into account too. I used to work in Wigmore Street, there’s no way that it won’t be adversely affected by the changes.
Well said Mikey C. I reiterate for the Brook Street side, near Bond Street station. For that area at least, I’d advising leaving well alone until one can see the affect of what at least Bond Street Crossrail has on the area.
Moreover, the department stores such as Selfridges are warm, dry, embrace significant lengths of Oxford Street and contain areas within which to gain refreshment and relaxation and they cannot be compared with the suburban counterparts.
Amusing news – and egg on the faces of those who proclaimed he pedestrianisation going ahead was a near-certainty.
Well that has completely shredded the bus rationalisation plan…
To add to Graham point it is probably worth holding off on a decision around TCR station until Crossrail has opened and things have settled down after the building works. hence the best decision is probably to hold off on any further bus rationalisation in the greater Oxford Street area for another 2 years.
James,
Well I think it was a near certainty. If the consultation hadn’t included an invalid email response which delayed the final report (as part of the consultation had to be re-run) and decision and if there wasn’t a local election taking place before the final decision was made then I think it would have happened.
To my mind the three big consequences are:
1) The Mayor’s Healthy Streets policy is close to being in tatters. If he can’t manage this in Oxford St, you have to ask where can he manage this. A Not-quite-as-unhealthy-as-before Streets policy does not have the same cachet.
2) He can forget his idea of ‘zero pedestrians killed
andor seriously injured by a bus’ policy as Oxford Street is notorious for pedestrians being injured by a bus. Unless of course, he removes buses from Oxford St anyway.3) They really need to do something about hostile vehicle mitigation. In one of the recent terrorism trials Oxford St was identified as a target that the terrorist(s) were considering.
@PoP
He can forget his idea of ‘zero pedestrians killed and seriously injured by a bus’ policy
Sir Humphrey would disagree I’m sure. “Four people were killed by buses and a further 27 seriously injured but they were all different people so none was both killed and seriously injured. Your policy has been a resounding success,
ministermayor.”@ SHLR – I disagree but then I don’t support pedestrianisation of Oxford St. I’ve refrained from commenting widely on these recent articles to spare people repetition of what I’ve “ranted” on about before.
@ Ngh – it remains to be seen what TfL will do. The wider problem is that a big set of consequential changes / fleet cascades / financial savings hinged on the proposed Oxford St bus changes. That is possibly in tatters or it may simply be delayed. I can foresee a rather odd strategy emerging of TfL taking bus services out of Oxford St regardless of what WCC says in order to achieve other objectives. I expect the bus service planners are having a very fraught time at present.
Other bus changes in respect of Crossrail, but concentrated in the suburbs, are also looking a little bit wobbly. The consultation has not yet concluded and some new routes have not been put out to tender. Others have not been awarded despite the procurement process having concluded. We’re seven months away from Crossrail’s opening and that makes things extremely tight if new vehicles are needed plus the need to recruit new drivers and train them and others on new or changed routes.
Something will have to give very shortly as the need to make financial savings is paramount but the programme of service changes has ground to a halt. Part of that is due to election purdah but I think the scale of required cuts is being expanded given other difficulties. We shall see what transpires in the coming weeks.
This shambles does raise in my mind the question of how much power the Borough of Westminster has here. It seems, superficially at least, as if they can veto a pedestrianisation scheme on the grounds of the extra traffic which would result in other roads, but presumably they cannot veto bus diversions onto other roads, which as WW says could perhaps be done regardless. All rather odd.
@Malcolm,
That does seem odd, as there would be very little extra traffic generated by closing Oxford St except for the diverted buses.
@ Malcolm – WCC are the highway authority for the area. They override TfL on the issue of pedestrianisation. Oxford St is *their* road. TfL are obliged to consult WCC (as with any local authority) over the use of roads by bus services. There will almost certainly have to be discussions and a route test with a bus for any re-routing on to roads not currently served by buses. Ditto for any new stop positions or bus stands. This is all standard practice btw not anything new for Oxford St changes. It is worth noting here that we are not talking about small numbers of vehicle movements. Most routes on Oxford St remain frequent and stand space is at a premium. New stands will probably have to be big enough to take 2 or 3 double deckers per terminating route. That’s quite a lot of space.
If I take what Tom Edwards wrote in a BBC news article as correct then WCC have said they will not allow any traffic displacement – and that has to include buses – into side streets away from Oxford St. Taken at face value this kills off the use of Wigmore St by the 139 and 390 and also stops the use of a side street near Selfridges for the 94’s stand. There may be other small implications that I’ve missed over stands near Oxford Circus.
My previous comment was that TfL could just simply remove bus routes altogether – for example routes 10 and 23 are supposed to be being merged together across Marble Arch. Similarly TfL may simply remove the 94 from proceeding east of Marble Arch and may cut the 159 back to Oxford Circus while removing another route from there to provide the stand space for the 159. The irony is, if Oxford St remains open, that if buses are taken away it will simply fill up with black cabs, pedicabs and uber vehicles taking a chance. I don’t see how that helps anyone but I come at this from a position of wanting buses to remain a viable transport choice in Central London not one of forcing people to walk for miles. Looking at some social media reaction to the news yesterday the black cab trade was absolutely delighted at WCC’s decision. They’ve been moaning about the “red wall of buses” for years – all because they want to have a nice “black wall of taxis” instead. Make of that what you will.
@WW, @Malcolm: There was some kerfuffle recently when TfL re-routed the R1 to make it go a little faster. They changed both the route and then put some stops along the new route.
IIRC:
1. They had to consult on the new route
2. They didn’t have to consult on the bus stops other than with the emergency services.
I’m not sure if they could actually ignore the result of the route consultation and I believe they did end up consulting on the bus stop location after an “uproar”.
.So TfL could just move the bus routes anyway, I believe…
Oh SHLR! – If only it was just bus ‘re-routing’, which in my mind simply means restructuring Oxford Street itself in order to restore it to a straight road from end to end without all the wretched chicanes and so on, so as to result in a straight kerb line on both sides, then I wold be content. The pedestrians will be able to cope with that.
What happens now is that the bus stops for groups of routes are spaced apart, sometimes noticeably so, and for that bays for each bus stop have been provided along the non-linear kerb lines. The result of that interference is that buses randomly pull in and out from one another to overtake/veer in front of another to draw into a stop in front.
Coupled with the almost surprising number of quite closely-spaced traffic lights, that means that pedestrians trying to cross the road can be subject to up to two lots of buses travelling in opposite directions, with each pair having a bus trying to overtake the one on the inside, all squeezed into a wretchedly small lane in each direction.
I therefore suggest that those Oxford Street curbs are cut back again to a more sensible, straight boundary between pavement and road. Alternatively, introduce and enforce NO OVERTAKING signs (buses included). That might improve safety matters overnight.
The way Oxford Street is arranged at the moment, it reflects the totally opposite view of a fixed guidance system (e.g. tram), which is well-known to absorb the passenger traffic but also the buses could encourage more patronage if they didn’t have to fight one another the length of the street in order to pull in, often in ungainly fashion, in front of another bus about its business but almost certainly obstructing because of the affect of the narrowed carriageway.
Graham Feakins,
One of the problems of looking at Oxford St is that various interested parties will see the problem very differently and the ‘obvious’ solution to them solves the problem that they consider the most important.
The big issue with Oxford St is that all interested parties (e.g. Commissioner of police, taxi drivers, stores, residents, supporters of buses, supporters of trams) have completely different priorities and ideas as to what needs to be done.
What seems to have happened is that an impending local election meant that one of those interested groups was able to shout louder than the others. This is despite a Mayor, who had different ideas, being democratically elected and trying to implement his manifesto.
So we get back to the points made at the start of the discussion that the mention of trams do nothing in the short term to solve anything, air pollution needs to be addressed, various parties are really concerned about terrorism (though this may seem to be overplayed by others) and various other issues.
I am not particularly having a go at you. We are all guilty of this but we need to recognise what seems a solution to ‘our’ problems may not be a universal solution to all.
Straightening the kerb may solve a particular issue but then I suspect that rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic solved an issue that bothered the deckchair attendant – just not the issue that most at the time thought was most pressing.
@Pedantic of Purley
“What seems to have happened is that an impending local election meant that one of those interested groups was able to shout louder than the others. This is despite a Mayor, who had different ideas, being democratically elected and trying to implement his manifesto.”
But then the Westminster councillors were ALSO democratically elected. While London as a whole may have voted for this scheme, that doesn’t mean that the local residents can be ignored, especially as TfL don’t own the road.
Mikey C,
Totally agree. So either residents views were unduly supressed until a local election came along or they were reasonably taken into account but then a local election came along and they gained undue prominence.
Either way, the whole thing is not very satisfactory.
@Pop “rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic solved an issue that bothered the deckchair attendant ”
I am reminded of John Finnemore’s take on that:
Captain: “You two! Jump aboard if you value your lives! This lifeboat is ready to cast off!”
1st Deckchair attendant: “But you can’t cast off yet man! It’s only half full!”
Captain: “I can’t help that! It’s now or never!”
1st DCA: “But! I don’t understand! Why aren’t people filling it?!”
2nd DCA: “Well look sir, they can’t! The deck’s all set up for the evening concert still! People can’t get through!”
1st DCA: “Well then, somebody had better bloody well clear them apart! Are you with me?
2nd DCA: “I’m with you sir!”
1st DCA: “Good man! Then let’s get to work!”
………………..
1st DCA: “You realize that may have been… your last chance?”
2nd DCA: “I don’t mind sir! Truth be told, I’ve lived an insignificant sort of life, but at least I’ll die doing something truly worthwhile!”
1st DCA: “Yes I suppose that’s some consolation that we’ll never be forgotten…”
2nd DCA: “Oh no sir! Not us! We’ll always be remembered as the ruddy heroes who rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic!!”
1st DCA: “I say! What’s that noise?”
2nd DCA: “Oh why sir! I believe it’s the band! They’re… they’re still playing sir! Even as the ship goes down!”
1st DCA: “Good heavens! How self-indulgent!”
2nd DCA: “I know! What a ridiculously token effort to make at a time of crisis!”
1st DCA: “Indeed! They better hope posterity never gets to hear about them! Now come on man! Put your back into it! We’ve got deck chairs to rearrange!””
@SHLR – there are consultations and there are consultations. TfL frequently ignores the results of consultations and goes ahead with what it intended to do anyway. Only very rarely does the majority opinion win against the TfL position – I can think of only a few cases.
TfL does not routinely consult on timetable changes – either reductions or increases. It just changes things irrespective of how the poor users may feel. Witness the recent 50% cut in the RV1’s timetable which caused great disquiet but happened regardless. The same has happened with the night bus network where cuts have been made almost weekly – many of which were never consulted on. Sometimes when there are more extensive changes, as with Oxford St, there is a consultation that covers rerouting, curtailments and frequency changes. I may be wrong but I don’t think there was a majority in favour of any of the Oxford St bus changes. Worse TfL have changed their minds about some of them but not reconsulted. One proposal has been “delayed” possibly permanently with the route in question now operating to a terminal that was never consulted upon.
When I referred to bus stops and stands then most of this is done locally with councils and other relevant officials. Only rarely does TfL consult over the removal of routes away from bus stops or revised stands. One such example – to move the 271’s stand in Highgate – has been mired in local arguments for over a year with no apparent resolution. Similarly there has been a very mixed approach over hail and ride removal – no TfL consultation in respect of removing it on route 234 and yet hugely lengthy and involved consultations including the relevant borough on routes K1 and R2.
On one level you are right – TfL can and does what it wants when it suits it to do so. Whether there has been a published consultation process is a moot point given what happens. I don’t think TfL ever acts on stop and routing changes without doing the local level survey and consultation – to not do so just leaves itself open to challenge. The R1 change you cite was subject to a lengthy official consultation but, as you might expect in an area like Orpington, it proved very contentious in part because so many older people use the buses for shopping and health visit (hospital / doctor) purposes. They do not like changes!
I am still waiting to see the promised changes to the consultation process that the Mayor committed to making when he’d been challenged by Assembly Member Arnold over the shambolic nature of the current process. Methinks nothing is happening on this as the last thing anyone wants at the moment is a tougher, stricter and more meaningful consultation process that might stop cuts being made. Pardon the cynicism here but I know first hand what happens if you make relevant remarks from a user perspective that prove challenging – “ignored”.
@WW: If I take what Tom Edwards wrote in a BBC news article as correct then WCC have said they will not allow any traffic displacement – and that has to include buses – into side streets away from Oxford St.
I am not sure that is what Westminster is saying. What the Council leader is quoted by Tom Edwards is saying is:
No change on Oxford Street is not an option. However, having reviewed the recent consultation we are persuaded that full pedestrianisation is not the best solution.
We will make no formal decisions on the future of Oxford Street until all potential options have been fully considered and we have a solution that meets our eight pledges
The eight pledges actually give the impression that they were crafted to allow pedestrianisation – for example they pledge only to reduce pollution “across the district” and to “ensure traffic won’t rat run down narrow residential roads”. They also specifically state that only two bus routes will continue to run and there will be a reduction of 100 buses an hour (which is how the pollution reduction will happen).
Daniel Astaire, the Cabinet member for Oxford Street who was quoted as ordering a halt to work before the election, did not run for re-election and is no longer a councillor.
I think it would be a mistake to believe that Westminster City Council are going to save London’s Oxford Street bus routes. It seems to me that they are manoeuvring for compromise and mitigation (mobility buses along the street? Additional anti-rat run measures?) rather than actively vetoing the scheme. The precedent would be the part-pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square, which they opposed for a while and then allowed to go ahead.
Walthamstow Writer,
Some of us have tried to explain time and time again. TfL don’t ignore the results of a consultation. But, it is a consultation not a referendum and the point of them is to make sure they don’t overlook something. Or, to put it another way, to make sure that their presumptions at the start are correct.
So. Example 1: A plan is proposed. It adversely affects 10,000 people which is known about from the start (but there are far greater other benefits). 10,000 people object. No-one is in favour. Consultation does not raise a single new point that was not known at the time of the proposal. Project is approved.
Example 2: A different plan is proposed. Just about everyone is in favour of it. This is known from the start. But there is one objection. It could be from a scientist showing that a fundamental assumption is wrong or it could be that someone notes that a critical piece of existing underground infrastructure that cannot be got around has been overlooked in the planning. Project is shelved.
The pollution problem in Oxford St is easily solved.
Just don’t use buses with diesel engines on those routes …..
Which suggests an example 3 from PoP’s very valid remarks above:
A plan is proposed – some people are in favour, some are against.
TfL have a “set opinion” on the subject.
A person or group comes up with a “third way” that solves the problems & meets most of the objections.
[Minor Snip. PoP]
Greg Tingey,
Not merely buses but taxis as well over time. All new taxis (currently diesel) should be ‘zero emissions capable’. I suspect the taxis, being older, are actually giving out more harmful emissions than the buses.
There are occasions when a third (overlooked) solution is taken aboard as a result of a consultation. But normally all the possible options are identified and examined very carefully.
Actually, you could equally take your step one further. Demand that all diverted buses and taxis in the surrounding area are in electric mode. Voila! No increased emission due to traffic diverted to surrounding streets!*
* Maybe not quite true since it will slow down existing polluting traffic.
Re PoP,
a) the Taxis are vastly over powered, a smaller engine would reduce emissions
b) a petrol engine alternative to diesel would be far better for PMs and NOx* which Nissan did propose before losing it with TfL and walking away.
*UK Government has lost 2 court cases (1 UK, 1 European) so far in 2018 on NOx…
From Westminster Council’s most recent public statement on Oxford Street:
Work is now ongoing on the final consultation report which will be published in full in due course. The report will also respond to the huge number of points that have been raised and so will take time to finalise and we expect it to be published in the summer.
In the meantime, no formal decisions will be taken by Westminster City Council on whether, or how, to proceed with the transformation of Oxford Street until the consultation responses have been fully considered, as part of a robust decision making process.
So if anyone is over-riding the consultation process at the moment, it seems to be the Westminster councillors…
All new taxis from 2018 have to be Zero Emission Capable, the new petrol/electric hybrid TX taxi is very impressive. Diesel taxis could be banned from Oxford Street from say 2020 to help push this along and make a direct difference to local air quality.
As for TfL consultations, nobody has any faith that they will make a jot of difference to what happens, the 13/82 consultation showed what a waste of time they are, as TfL just did what they were always going to do, much to the annoyance of local residents AND politicians.
@PoP
“…or it could be that someone notes that a critical piece of existing underground infrastructure that cannot be got around has been overlooked in the planning.”
…a real life example of which is mentioned in today’s Friday Reads (which I presume is why you chose that example).
@ PoP – understand your observations about the consultation process. I have yet to see a single statement from TfL about why they consult that explains the methodology you set out. You will not be at all shocked that I don’t agree with the logic that you set out. There are loads of valid and pertinent remarks from people who use services that TfL routinely ignore because they place no value on user experience and prefer instead to use their models and statistics. This is why we have bus routes with single deck buses packed to the gunwhales when double decks could easily run and also the converse where double decks operate (after a consultation was held) and barely have loadings at any time of day in single figures. Can’t be seen to be wrong after a consultation has been held and “colours have been nailed to a mast”.
I fully understand, before you remind me, that TfL has its own sets of constaints and can’t meet every need / aspiration / whim that it receives. However I do wish it would be a lot clearer about the purpose of the consultation process and stop misleading the public that they take their opinions and ideas into account. There is a mountain of evidence and complaints from politicians to the contrary.
@ Ian J – I have no illusions about what will eventually happen on Oxford St. I dare some monumental fudge that just about passes muster for the respective parties will be constructed and everyone will smile sweetly. I certainly don’t expect WCC to “rescue the bus network” given they clearly don’t care about it in the first place. I still believe pedestrianisation is the wrong policy for a whole load of reasons and many of the motivations behind it are also wrong headed. As ever I am quite happy with my usual minority viewpoint on matters.
I think WCC’s position re the consultation process and abuse of it is debatable. You can’t just believe in “big democracy” and allow local considerations to be trampled. So what if a London wide consultation said “yes” but the locals are not in favour. You don’t just ignore the locals. People have terrifically long memories.
Yes the timing of elections and fear of losses of tory seats on the council no doubt came into play but it was ever thus. Anyone with an ounce of foresight and who had even the slightest knowledge of local feeling could have predicted problems. That no one seemingly did says a lot for the depth of understanding and planning that went into the consultation process in the first place. This is not the first time that local political considerations have caused problems for City Hall / TfL sponsored schemes. Perhaps it reveals something of an attitude problem somewhere? Lessons should be learnt from this but I doubt they will be.
Anything major to do with roads and traffic always ends up with local interests pitted against strategic interests – usually the former against change with the latter in favour of it. My experience with consultation runs with PoP and not with WW, especially given the respondents to any consultation are self-selecting and not a representative sample . That inevitably produces more opponents than supporters. The outcome is almost guaranteed to offend a significant group of people, whatever it is. This tend to tip the balance in favour of no change, so it’s a relatively brave politician that goes with radical change.
@Quinlet
On the other side of London, where TfL are planning to install pedestrian crossings on the Blackwall Tunnel approach road in Bow, it can be argued that it’s the other way round, where the locals are for the change (to improve their environment), whereas from a strategic “national” point of view, having a good road for motor traffic to access the tunnel and cross the Thames might be considered more important.
I imagine that in the TfL consultation, the people living in the area would be keen on the change, whereas the people living outside the area (and indeed outside of London) would be against.
TfL must hold consultations on the creation of new bus routes, changes to routes and the withdrawal of routes. This is covered under sections 183 and 184 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
However, there is no provision requirement under that act for TfL to consult on frequency changes to routes.
You could say the changes to the night bus network as a result of the introduction of Night Tube services illustrates perfectly consultation and non-consultation.
There was a consultation to cater for the new night routes. There was also recognition that some existing night bus routes with enhanced frequencies at weekends would have those enhancements withdrawn, and that was also highlighted.
However, if you refer to the notes at the bottom of the table in the link below, it mentions the monitoring of (night) bus services other than those listed following the introduction of Night Tube.
Although those notes also say if any further changes are proposed there will undertake some specific engagement on proposals, those routes weren’t changed, so service reductions on many night bus services were implemented without prior publicity/consultation.
Sorry, I left out the link!
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/night-bus-review/user_uploads/night-buses-for-night-tube-changes-summary-2016.pdf
Considering the comments above concerning the consultation, I wonder whether it included the effect of what has generally become known as the “Oslo Effect”. I take the liberty to add here part of the content of a 2017 press release on behalf of the Light Rail Transit Association which explains:
The LRTA notes the recent EU final warning and threat of heavy fines
against five countries, including the UK, on air quality breaches. This concerns Nitrogen dioxide emissions, which is largely from vehicle exhausts. However, a worrying source of equally harmful PM10 and PM2.5 pollutants has recently been identified.
It has generally been assumed that most vehicle pollution comes from the tail pipe and by cleaning up engines or moving to electric vehicles that can be cut. Research has shown that up to 90% of harmful PM2.5 and 85% of PM10A pollution come from non-exhaust sources such as tyre wear, road surface wear, and the brakes. This is known as the Oslo effect after the city where it was first noted.
Unfortunately, electric vehicles can be up to 40% heavier so even more of these harmful particles are emitted from the tyres. Electric rail based vehicles such as trams, with regenerative braking emit virtually none of these pollutants.
The World Health Organisation and the University of Bath has identified serious health risks and concludes that there were 16,335 premature deaths in the UK in 2012 due to this pollution. It has further identified hotspots around the country where this is particularly bad. Unsurprisingly these focus on places of high traffic density.
It has also been shown that increased incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, and dementia may be linked to these particulates. These pollution problems will remain, whether we are in the EU or not.
Other countries are tackling the problem… [by introducing new tramways – Graham F].
Notes:
Particle pollution, also called particulate matter or PM, is a mixture of solids and liquid droplets floating in the air. Some particles are released directly from a specific source, while others form in complicated chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Particles come in a wide range of sizes. Particles less than or equal to 10 micrometres in diameter are so small that they can get into the lungs, potentially causing serious health problems. Ten micrometres
is less than the width of a single human hair. Particles between 2.5 microns and 10 microns are known as PM10 and those below 2.5microns are PM2.5.
Online links in support are available upon request.
Graham Feakins,
Excellent point. And I am surprised but delighted that you made it. So clearly, any form of tyred vehicle down Oxford St is undesirable – even if electric. Given the need for a solution in the near future rather than many years hence I trust you will be fully supportive of pedestrianisation of Oxford St. Here’s hoping the effect is very small in the case of shoe leather, or, more likely, the soles of trainers.
Of course, in the long term one can look to use trams on the diverted routes to improve air quality in the surrounding area (but, I suspect, most of us just know that isn’t going to happen).
And, lets not forget that arguing about which, if any, form of transport should go down Oxford St is only one of the issues in this broader scheme.
Meanwhile, TfL ( Or at least the current Mayor ) & some in several Local Authorities are very carefully pretending that the Oslo effect does not exist …
[Minor snip PoP]
B&T,
Could well be because the science is not so generally known as fact or the evidence, though supportive, is not overwhelming. Before we get too cynical remember what happened when politicians jumped too quickly about the dangers of CO₂ and supported encouraging diesel cars.
Also, the psychologists will tell you that if your attempt too much then the message is overwhelming and many people react by being in denial so best not hit them with the full truth in one go. This is believed to be a factor why it to so long for the ‘no smoking’ message to get through.
If you think this is bad news for the Mayor of London then think what it is like for the extremely green Mayor of Paris with all her rubber-typed Metro trains.
@ Sugar Fiend – I am well aware of the clauses governing consultation. I am also familiar with the Night Bus consultation and the wriggle room that is evident. However there was also a political promise from Val Shawcross that all of the night route changes would be paused, that there would a review and that the results would be shared. Guess what – only the promise re the pause and review were undertaken. No publication of the findings and all that has happened since is a mass cutting of frequencies – even to routes that would connect very nicely with the recent Night Overground service at New Cross Gate.
Your comments just reinforce my cynicism I’m afraid. Why create the impression you are consulting on frequencies when
a) you don’t have to (as per the GLA Act clauses)
b) you then implement cuts that are worse than what was consulted on?
This sort of muddled, inconsistent approach with NO explanation of what was done and why just gets my goat. I could cite (but won’t!) many other examples of inconsistent consultation on route changes where TfL did one thing in one instance and the complete opposite in others. Do it properly, consistently and be honest with people even if the news is unpalatable. That I can accept even if I may not like the results.
WW
Fully in agreement with that.
What’s even worse is when the results from a consultation are deliberately skewed, so that of 5 options to proposed changes, only those at number 5 are taken as “against” rather than numbers 4 & 5 ( If you see what I mean ) – & even number 3 ( i.e. “neutral” ) are taken as a vote “for” …..
And, yes, this has happened, in London, recently.
[ I will only tell you where/when if given permission by the moderators, as it is a very sensitive subject,. ]
[Permission not granted. However, your general point about interpretation of consultation results is valid, and permitted, though of course “deliberately” is to be taken as your (plausible) assumption rather than a matter of fact. Malcolm]
Re Graham F, PoP and B&T,
B&T:
My feeling is that they may soon stop denying – what would be helpful is some DEFRA guidance on some handy quick tips on actions that can easily be take to reduce braking and acceleration for local council for example removing speed humps chicanes 😉
Nothing quite like a BBC news article and a bit of DEFRA clarification in a new strategy to make sure they are aware:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44203396
R&D – They are mostly wasting their time in my professional opinion, the new tyre standards introduced just over 6 years ago did most of that already banning the cheap / high wear tyre is the only option (but you also want to maintain low rolling resistance to reduce fuel consumption, CO2 and NOx). a well known French tyre manufacture did all the work donkeys years ago ( I have a summary somewhere) and will quite happily explain it all to DEFRA & DfT (again for the nth time) aka “there is no magic bullet”. I seem to remember
I’m sure Doug will oblige and email plenty of good advice to those councils, if they are wise they will take heed.
PoP
One of my recollections of the Tribology lectures at uni is that wear is always related to 4th power of load in some way so grip and wear are closely related. given chosen materials.
Edges and grooves increase wear so more grooves for improved tread patterns for wet weather stopping result in higher PMs…
I’m just waiting for Gove to blame Hunt for not tackling obesity and the increased shoe leather /rubber wear problem… 😉
@NGH:
Some councils welcome this approach whilst others think they’re being left to do the government’s dirty work.
This is the role of councils now, to take the flack….
“Research has shown that up to 90% of harmful PM2.5 and 85% of PM10A pollution come from non-exhaust sources such as tyre wear, road surface wear, and the brakes”
I can see how heavier vehicles (because batteries are inherently heavy) create more tyre wear and road surface wear.
But brakes? A feature of hybrid and electric vehicles is that they achieve most of their braking by regeneration, and only use friction brakes for the last few mph (or when full brakes are required, such as in an emergency stop). Motoring magazine reports of vehicles such as the Prius suggest the brake pads last far longer than non hybrid vehicles.
Hmmm… so it looks like Westminster has pulled the plug on on this project completely.
http://betteroxfordstreet.org/westminster-city-council-has-taken-the-pedestrianisation-of-oxford-street-off-the-table-for-good-and-we-have-informed-the-mayor-and-tfl-of-our-decision
Mayor Khan won’t be happy and it remains to be seen how much of the project, such as bus route reorganisation, will remain.
And the BBC’s take on it.
Can we have the proper 13 bus (to Aldwych) back again please!
Its removal was effectively the start of removing bus routes from Oxford Street
The House of Fraser is helping solving the problem in a different way.
Graham H
😝
So Westminster think they can improve the shopping environment in Oxford Street (essential) without reducing carriageway space for traffic, or, presumably, significantly reducing bus and taxi traffic. Good luck with that, then.
Re Quinlet,
Removing all the street detritus (lamp posts*, shop signs, kiosks, phone boxes) and fixing the dodgy paving would be a good start. Fast and sign posted walking routes on side streets would also be good.
*Follow the Corporation of London practice of having them mounted on buildings instead.
The pavements on Oxford Street are much wider than they used to be, so either
a) People used to cope with narrower pavements before fine, or
b) The number of visitors is now much higher than it used to be, i.e. the current state of Oxford Street isn’t actually putting off visitors at all.
@Mikey C: I haven’t been to Oxford Street in years simply because of the crowds. The fact there is nothing there that I can’t find elsewhere also helps.
But then I do live quite close to Bluewater…
@Southern Heights: As
a) We now have Bluewater, Lakeside, Westfield White City and Westfield Stratford as alternative major shopping destinations, the two Westfields being very well connected by public transport, and
b) We no longer physically shop as much due to the internet
Maybe the importance of Oxford Street as a through route for buses is just as important as its role as a shopping street now.
Diamond Geezer has an update on this, with further internal links to the relevant TfL pages, too.
Though it includes DG’s telling comment …”which is essentially TfL saying why they’re ignoring every issue people raised.”
Mikey C
The only serious alternative to Oxford Street in your list is White City, with its ‘high end’ designer stores.
@Hackneyite – maybe, with the continuing consolidation of department stores, we have reached peak Oxford Street.
The only real hope for Oxford Street is to improve the street and shopping environment. The risk that TfL is running is that by reducing bus traffic down Oxford Street, some other traffic, particularly taxis, will increase to fill the capacity made available. This is probably the worst of all worlds for Oxford Street – fewer buses but no reduction in traffic or emissions and no improvement in the street environment.
@ Quinlet – in my very limited experience of Oxford St in recent months the volume of taxis and Uber vehicles has increased hugely as the buses have reduced. Taking even more buses out will do precisely what you say. It is no shock that one of the most vehement critics of the so called “red wall of buses” was the taxi trade. Now we know why – they want Oxford St to themselves. TfL are simply playing into their hands by taking even more buses out. They are also guaranteeing that I will never shop in Oxford St again.
@WW: Not true! The council is playing into the hands of the taxi trade by not allowing Oxford Street to be pedestrianised.
SHLR and WW
It seems to me that the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Both TfL and Westminster Council could be said to be “playing into the hands of the taxi trade” by their respective actions.
The whole exercise, of which these Oxford Street changes are a small part strikes me as entirely counter-productive.
TfL ( & most of the local authorities ) are claiming that they want to improve & facilitate Public Transport, including buses, so as to act a a “carrot” in removing surplus / unwanted / polluting car traffic from the streets.
Ye, by cutting up bus-routes, changing & re-changing theri destinations, making journeys significantly slower & less comfortable ( 20mph + road-humps etc ) they are doing the exact opposite & driving people into the arms of the taxi trade ( in all of its forms ) & back into theor cars.
Yet no-one in TFL seems to have realised this, or they are subject to direction from “above” which they cannot evade? ( ?? )
Just to note, at least as far as “Black cabs” are concerned, TfL is very much in charge of them, via the licence.
Re Greg,
I suspect they are taking a holistic view and looking at the total emissions picture and heating is an obvious big
+ cheap low hanging fruit so probably expect some measures outside of transport too.
e.g.:
a) Wood Burning stoves (PMs)
b) Older boilers, heating systems and poorly insulated homes (NOx). Simple things like encouraging fitting Thermostatic Radiator Valves or a smart heating controller probably have very high BCRs compared to just transport measures. (i.e. complying with the latest Building reg changes on new heating installations (unlike British Gas cough cough)). Condensing boilers have far lower NOx than older types but the BCR is dubious alone. There is a new EU directive on reducing NOx from heating amongst other things. (Gas is far better than Oil though).
Completely agree that the transport side of things looks a bit disjointed policy wise but suspect TfL want far more evidence before taking more transport policy decisions on emissions.
As most policy might head to Judicial Review they will want good evidence…
@ Greg – I broadly support public transport being publicly accountable via locally elected politicians. For London this means the Mayor with limited oversight from the London Assembly. However what we are seeing now and had under Boris is the downside to that control and accountability. When you get political imperatives getting in the way of sound rational policies then you have a huge problem. There was little coherence in policy terms under Boris – TfL juggled things as best as they could and tried not to fall foul of the Deputy Mayor for Transport. I also suspect Sir Peter Hendy didn’t mince his words with Boris if he felt something wasn’t right.
We are now in a different place. In theory the policy framework is more coherent (Mayor’s Transport Strategy) *but* there is little sign of it being applied properly and the financial situation is overriding everything. It’s also clear that the aims of the MTS don’t always align with local feeling as we are seeing with Westminster Council’s various challenges. I know TfL can’t be allowed to go bust so money will always win out but I do think this Mayor’s first term will be marked out as having achieved very little in transport terms. It’s ironic really given that Boris was (rightly) lambasted for culling a whole tranche of projects within weeks of taking office. Sadiq is just doing the same but over a far longer time period in the hope no one notices.
Walthamstow Writer,
This is all because the Mayor doesn’t really have a transport strategy as such. He has a far reaching air quality and street environment strategy of which transport is a part.
Somehow, air quality got consumed into TfL’s remit a few years ago. This makes some sense with transport one of the biggest causes of pollution. I don’t think at the time anyone thought how this would inevitably logically play out. Reducing the number of buses in central London is just one example of how this can be an entirely rational decision yet one not consistent with a purely transport policy. You might not agree with it, and I am offering no opinion either way, but I would entirely defend it as a rational decision the Mayor is entitled to make. I suspect he may well have reduced the number of buses even if money wasn’t an issue.
What is rarely mentioned because, either the benefits are not visible or the benefits have yet to come through, is just how much money the Mayor has been spending to ensure that the buses (and other vehicles) we have are much cleaner vehicles. It doesn’t make much sense to pursue such a policy if you then go running almost empty buses (however clean) and undo a lot of the hard earned benefits made elsewhere.
Highly significant is ngh’s comments on getting the BCR to improve air quality. Once you have involved TfL in air quality you then have to look at the bigger picture. It doesn’t make much sense if you spend millions of pounds improving the cleanliness of buses and other vehicles only to allow urban coal and wood burning, two stroke engines used by professional gardeners and a host of other things that would actually be a more effectively way of spending money to achieve the Mayor’s desired result. Note that the Mayor’s desired result is not a better bus service thought undoubtedly he would like to have that if he could – as made clear in the inaccurately named Mayor’s Transport Strategy document.
Re PoP and Greg,
GLA semi-devolving to TfL.
Worth pointing out that vehicle and boilers have certain similarities:
1) both have seen step changes in emissions rules as regards NOx boiler rules lead vehicles (and no gaming boiler rules)
2) the annual replacement rates for both are over 1m per year nationally, circa 160-180k for boilers in London.
Differences
3) new boiler is far cheaper
Hence new boilers significantly reduce emissions every year as older stock is replaced for the time being but we are possibly post peak reduction already but there will be a long tail and certainly decent reduction for good few years to come. Hence the need to understand the on going impact of current policy well as poor value knee jerk decisions can be avoided.
Similarly IEPs introduction on GWML & ECML will reduce rail NOx emissions.
Low emission buses seem to have helped the the infamous Putney High Street monitoring station.
PoP & WW
BUT if TfL’s buses are electric or hybrid with no pure-diesels, then what’s the point of slaughtering & comminuting the bus-routes … ?
Greg Tingey,
There is no such thing as a pollution-free bus and you will still get particulates from the tyres. Also some from the brake blocks although this will be diminished with decent regen.
More to the point, the Mayor wants to completely change the streetscape and all that this encompasses. Unfortunately, electric buses can knock down and kill and injure people just as effectively as diesel ones. Reducing or eliminating deaths on the roads is one of his key objectives.
I think more realistically, the Mayor can have lots of diesel buses in the centre of London or, for the same money, fewer electric ones. I think he has gone for fewer electric ones. Of course, many would argue that in the long term electric buses should be cheaper but the problem is that TfL is keeping a tight eye on cashflow. Just because something is better value for money doesn’t make it more affordable. And TfL has more-or-less maxed out its borrowing limit.
Slightly off at a tangent, there is a great irony that one of the much vaunted benefits of removing cars many years ago from Oxford St was the beneficial effect it would have on buses and passenger journey times. Now Oxford St is seen as part of the problem – hence the desire to curtail the routes along it. This particularly applies to ones that terminate a short distance the other side of it.
And you don’t have to tell me how daft it is that the space created by the buses vacating will be fill by smelly old diesel taxis. Of course, in time they will go but the same objections would still apply to the new electric taxis – even though they are a great improvement.
To me Mayor Khan just doesn’t “get” buses. You do feel that he sees them as a necessary evil, rather than something desirable, a feeling which seems to be strong within TfL at the moment. In their fantasy London, we’d all cycle in, or cycle to tube/Overground stations.
Hence with TfL needing to save money, they seem to be the continual target for reductions, whether in central London or in the suburbs.
Mikey C,
Or, possibly, Mayor Khan does “get” buses but he “gets” air pollution even more. Just saying.
@poP
“Unfortunately, electric buses can knock down and kill and injure people just as effectively as diesel ones. ”
My father tells me that when trolleybuses replaced trams in Dartford they were known as the “Silent Death”
If people are worried about pedestrians being run over, surely a better contribution to road safety would be to ban pedestrians from walking while reading their phones…
Mikey C,
I think that is precisely the thinking that the Mayor’s team wants to get away from. In their eyes you just don’t get it.
The idea is to create a pedestrian friendly environment where pedestrians don’t have to worry about such things. Old school thinking is to keep pedestrians clear of traffic hence pedestrian subways, pedestrian overbridges, pedestrian barriers (which turned out to be dangerous for cyclists as there was nowhere for them to go in the event of a collision), pedestrian phases that fitted in with vehicle traffic, pedestrian phases limited in duration so as not to delay traffic (even though the time allocated was insufficient to pedestrians).
More modern thinking is to keep the vehicles out of way of pedestrians (subtle but important difference), restrict speed so any collision is not so serious, ensure pedestrian phases at lights are long enough to cater for pedestrians, widen pavements where necessary even if it means fewer lanes of traffic etc.
It is not so much that pedestrians are more important but often they are more numerous (as in Oxford St) and use the available space much more efficiently than buses and taxis.
@timbeau – when the first battery buses were introduced in the pedestrianised city centre streets in Leeds in the ’70s (route 500 as I recall, the vehicles were equipped to emit birdlike noises…. (and no, I can’t remember the precise species)
@ PoP – So the fact that TfL are aiming to save £375m from the bus contract budget [1] and are lopping off 37m kms per annum off the bus network [2] is for air quality reasons is it? Nothing to do with TfL’s budget being wrecked by the previous Mayor, this Mayor and the Treasury? In essence what you seem to be saying is that the Mayor lied in his manifesto by not saying that a key element of air quality improvements was to make the busiest public transport mode in London vastly worse. Well counted me in as well and truly conned.
[1] statement made to the London Assembly by Andrew Pollins of TfL IIRC
[2] from the current TfL business plan
Walthamstow Writer,
He didn’t lie. It was just he was silent on the issue. He promised not to increase fares. He didn’t promise not to decrease services.
Even if he promised not to reduce the bus spending budget (or keep it up in line with inflation) he will effectively reduce services because, due to air quality and other issues, buses will be more expensive.
I would have thought it was fairly obvious buses were not going to do well, as regards level of service, under Khan – even before he was elected. If a politician is quiet on an issue then assume the worst. If he announces a fares freeze then ask yourself how can he afford that? As someone else says, there is no magic money tree.
@WW: “Nothing to do with TfL’s budget being wrecked by the previous Mayor, this Mayor and the Treasury?”
You missed the former mayor’s former chums: Our previous prime minister and minister of finance (for those unused to British terms). However it is difficult not to think that the modern British politician’s mantra is that there is magic “efficiency tree” of infinite capacity, that can be milked whenever it’s required to gain votes.
Except, of course when the magic money tree is suddenly required to waste the right kind of money!
But there is a money tree, but its sole aim is to prop up the banks, perhaps. :
Quantitative easing does not involve literally printing more money. Instead, we create new money digitally.</em
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/quantitative-easing
And now there is the clamour to pedestrianise key London areas, of which this will no doubt be one. Closing both Oxford Street and Westminster would pretty well destroy the current inner London bus network, of course.
@Graham H: Have you been overdosing on tabloids? “Destroy the current inner London bus network”?
Indeed! We might only be one step away from destroying democracy!
Speaking of destroying the bus network. There are apparently some major changes afoot (Further than just Oxford St, so perhaps this comment should be on another thread). Details in this article on the 853 site.
By the way – the 853 is an excellent investigative news site for SE London- funded by supporters, just like LonRec,
https://853london.com/2018/08/15/tfl-plans-permanent-cutbacks-for-routes-53-171-and-172-in-huge-bus-axe-scheme/
@SHLR – I fear not. Anything that closed both Oxford Street and parliament Square would effectively sever many of the current trunk routes that pass through central London – the 11, 12, 22 and 88 for example. And as perhaps Island Dweller was implying, the ramifications would extend far and wide.
@PEDANTIC OF PURLEY (13 August 2018 at 21:34)
Yes, it’s excellent to make the streets safer for pedestrians BUT that doesn’t mean that pedestrians don’t have to be considerate themselves. Apart from anything else the pedestrians glued to their phone screens are a danger to cyclists and indeed other pedestrians (the old and young for example). If people get into bad habits in “safe ” parts of London, they are likely to repeat them elsewhere…
(14 August 2018 at 14:15)
I disagree that it was obvious that buses would do badly. Being quiet about an issue could also be a sign that little was going to change. Especially to those unaware of TfL’s budget issues (i.e. most people)
And, whoever is at fault, Boris, Sadiq or Osborne, major cuts are taking place to the bus network under a LABOUR Mayor. Can you imagine the comments from the left if it had been a Tory Mayor cutting back bus services?
“Typical Tories cutting bus services, as they don’t use them etc” “Only interested in trains for the rich” etc
If enthusiasm for pedestrianising Parliament Square extends beyond the current news cycle, my guess would be that the plans would compromise around pedestrianising only the south and east sides and converting the north and west to 2-way traffic. This would greatly improve the pedestrian experience around the abbey and palace but only require rerouting of 2 (nos. 3 & 87) of the many bus routes through the area. Taxi drivers would no doubt be furious.
@Stewart – that was Mrs T’s (personal) proposal back in the mid-80s and, as you say, would have not been very disruptive; the then trunk routes approaching from Millbank, such as the 3 or the 159, could have travelled via Westminster Bridge. Given the nature of recent terrorist incidents, however, I suspect that the security folk have in mind a much larger area for closure, including parts of Westminster Bridge and the rest of Parliament Square.
Closing Bridge Street between Parliament Square and the Embankment is again, not very disruptive, as an Embankment – Northumberland Avenue route would be still available if unsatisfactory (shades of the 109B/109W, and later, the 77/87)) but there is no feasible alternative if all of Parliament Square is closed to routes from Victoria.
Cumulatively, however, the effects of even a “minor” change would be disruptive and compounded by the impact of displaced traffic on, for example, the County Hall junction. The impact of a maximalist closure would remove entirely the scope for running such routes as the 24, 11, or 201 in their present form.
Closing the east and south sides of Parliament Square would have the effect of closing Abington Street (Millbank), too, at least north of Great College Street. This would lead to some significant displacement impacts of traffic coming north up Millbank from Vauxhall Bridge and would have significant impacts on the junctions of :
– Vauxhall Bridge Road and John Slip Street
– Marsham Street and John Islip Street
– Marsham Street and Horseferry Road
– Abington Street and Great Peter Street
– Great Peter Street and Great Smith Street
– Great Smith Street and Victoria Street
Although the resulting traffic stress would result in a net reduction of traffic overall, I very much doubt if the direct impacts on these displacement routes would be at all acceptable, especially to Westminster City Council with its current emphasis on residents.
A simple East side closure of Parliament Square would, though, work.
Bus route closures
I suggest people look at today’s Diamond Geezer post which contains many worrying details. As well as the farcical note that TfL couldn’t produce a map, because they had scrapped their own …..
[ This is probably a suitable subject for an entirely new post, here, though? ]
@Quinlet I think the closing of the part of Abington Street (Millbank) north of Great College Street – and the joining of Victoria Tower Gardens & College Green – would be very beneficial for the pedestrian experience, both in terms of pleasantness and security. But then I agree that Westminster council may not see it that way.
Also, my impression is that most of the traffic along Millbank crosses the river at either Lambeth or Vauxhall bridges so the traffic impact may be greater on the other side of the river and Westminster and Waterloo bridges.
A significant part of the problem resulting from any closure of parliament square to traffic is how to allow access for vehicles (cars or taxis) carrying MPs once the division bells sound in the House. I still vividly remember watching 3 doormen frantically trying to shoehorn Cyril Smith into a cab outside the National Liberal Club as the division bell rang.
@MIKEY C
TfL’s plans to cuts buses are “an attack on working classes” according to News Shopper. And some of these sentiments are coming from Labour Councillors…
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/16444978.proposed-tfl-cuts-to-53-171-and-172-bus-routes-attack-on-working-class/
Further complicating the bus issue…. Apparently the City Corporation is planning to make some streets “EV only”. Frustratingly, the linked article doesn’t say which street(s). If they pick Bishopsgate, it would affect a large
nunnerynumber of routes.https://myzikk.com/2018/08/20/city-of-london-weighs-limited-ban-on-non-electric-vehicles/
@Island Dweller
Is predictive text also responsible for your “nunnery of routes”. As they are electric presumably it’s a silent order?
@timbeau, Island Dweller
Yes electric, hence the multiple daily meditative recharge sessions.
@LBM: All of these: Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline? 😉
@ROG (1LONDONBLOG)
Interesting and not surprising. I can imagine a lot of “working class” bus users will see their services being cut while money is being spent on cycling infrastructure and junction changes that benefit “middle class” riders.
@MIKEY C
Lycra clad middle class road cyclists don’t like cycle lanes, because they aren’t designed for cyclists who want to go fast. Cycle lanes are for families going to school or the shops or working people commuting (cycling is even cheaper than the bus – if you buy a good second hand bike).
There’s new news about Westminster’s Oxford Street plans.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-alternative-plans-for-oxford-street-after-pedestrianisation-rejected-a3965036.html
http://www.cityam.com/266023/buses-run-24-hours-day-under-new-plans-oxford-street
The public consultation will start on 6th November for six weeks until 16th December.
And the WCC web page can be found here
It depends a bit on what they actually implement but if I were the Mayor I would be quite pleased as much of what was wanted is proposed whilst any blame and anger is going to be directed at Westminster not the Mayor or TfL. Of course, publicly, I would condemn it.
So:
– Electric buses only – but electric buses is policy anyway
– Maximum 4 bus routes – but that is irrelevant as max frequency isn’t specified so you can run as many buses as you want whilst complaining about being limited by Westminster’s policy
– Removing bus laybys. Genius. This means that taxis get stuck behind buses and are discouraged from using the road as a through route. At the same time, conditions for pedestrians (especially those exiting Crossrail stations) is much improved as pavements are wider throughout their length
– Possible ban on taxis at certain times of day. Guaranteed to upset cabbies and Westminster not the Mayor is in the firing line
– Possible electric taxis only (not clear). If implemented this does much to mean all the pollution meeting criteria are met. It might even encourage taxi drivers to convert to electric.
Furthermore TfL are already planning extra bus safety measures such as collision avoidance detection. So they can do a lot to control injuries and fatalities. There is no reason why they couldn’t mandate the same for any taxi using Oxford St as part of the taxi licence conditions.
Suddenly I don’t feel nearly as much animosity towards Westminster.
The proposal also mentions “encourage consolidation of deliveries”. That’s a sensible idea, given that the plethora of competing delivery van services has added to congestion. But do local authorities (or tfl) have any power to mandate this?
It’s worth reading the taxi section, followed by the pedi-cab section.
It’s clear who’s got the better level of political clout!
@PoP: My super-cynic voice said to me that this is something rushed out after they rejected the mayor’s plan to avoid being painted as the nasty party.
The removal of the bus laybys is a absolutely stupid and the creation of all that additional space for pedestrians is going to get taken up by all the green space they are creating.
Quite a few of the other options are things that they should have been doing decades ago! So no brownie points from me….
Southern Heights (Light Railway),
But I wasn’t being sarcastic. I do think the removal of bus laybys is a brilliant idea. It stops – or highly discourages – traffic overtaking which must be one of the main causes of collisions. It really discourages cab drivers using it a through route without actually banning them. It keeps speeds down to a crawl (doesn’t matter if all the vehicles are electric).
They don’t appear to have mentioned hostile vehicle mitigation but removing the bus laybys enable a straight line of bollards at the pavement edge which will help remind pedestrians they are about to step into the road and stop powered delivery vehicles mounting the pavement as well has achieve its intended objective.
One does wonder if Westminster would have done anything if it wasn’t for the Mayor’s original proposal.
It also helps speed buses up because they don’t have to wait to pull out.
It works really well when the bus pulls in by 1-2 feet. Not enough space for cars to pass, but cyclists can still filter by.
A simple line of bollards will certainly help prevent a hostile or otherwise out of control vehicle getting through into the pedestrian areas with any great momentum built up already. In addition to removing the pull in bays, I would group stops together into long clearly marked ‘platforms’ two to three buses long, where remaining bus lines all stop in whatever order they arrive in, so there’s no need for leapfrogging. Clearly no layovers should be scheduled in these stops. Taxis would presumably be encouraged to drop off on nearby parallel or intersecting roads with new rank areas located with the same idea in mind for pickups.
@PoP: Bus Laybys are perfectly good if one makes a little tweak to the road code (as has already been in many countries on the mainland): Make it compulsory for traffic to stop when a bus indicates that it wants to pull out… The fact that all London buses are fitted with traffic cameras should help with the enforcement.
@ PoP – I’m afraid that electric double decker buses are NOT policy for the ULEZ which covers Oxford Street. Euro6 hybrid double deckers are TfL’s policy basis for the ULEZ. It is only single deckers in the ULEZ that will be converted to all electric. There is nothing in prospect to replace even 4 bus routes worth of double deckers with new electric only vehicles. Worse if you go down to 4 routes only then the planned conversion of route 7 to hydrogen DD buses is wasted because the buses will NEVER enter the ULEZ as the route will be curtailed at Marble Arch or west thereof. The only electric double deckers on order are for the 43 (which serves the City and London Bridge) and 134 which TfL are proposing to curtail at University College Hospital / Warren St so effectively at the border of the ULEZ.
While hybrid vehicles are not counted as electric vehicles for most purposes, I think they may perhaps still count for the purpose of PoP’s comment, since he was referring to the likelihood of stop/starting and/or creeping at low speeds. Such behaviour would be highly deprecated for a fossil-fuel vehicle with a normal (non-hybrid) transmission, as it would generate emissions disproportionate to the distance travelled. But hybrids, particularly with a big battery, probably creep with no more emissions that if they dart.
Walthamstow Writer,
Yes, I know that.
I wasn’t intending to suggest that the Mayor can sit back and it will all magically happen. But it is now within the Mayor’s power to make Oxford St pollution free which was one of his major objectives. I know very few pure electric double deckers on order and under current plans they are not destined for Oxford St. No matter.
You don’t need fully electric buses. All you need is zero-emission capable buses. Same as with the taxis – that is what the latest London taxis are.
At question time after a talk a few years ago I ask a senior Alexander Dennis person precisely this question. If only zero emission capable vehicles were to be allowed in Oxford St in future could their buses run in zero emission mode to comply with this? The answer was no as things currently stood but he assured me it would be almost trivial to configure new hybrid buses at least so that they could.
It is also looking more and more as if technology can form a large part of meeting the Mayor’s objective of reducing (untimately to zero) the injuries and deaths caused by buses in Oxford St. And since he licenses taxis, I can’t see why he can’t achieve that objective even if it includes taxis.
So the Mayor is in a much better place than he was a couple of months ago with most of his Oxford St objectives achievable – if he wishes to do what is necessary.
We do have to be careful of the Volkswagen-type scenario with zero-emissions claims though, as a vehicle which ‘can’ run with zero emissions is not the same as a vehicle which ‘does’ run with zero-emissions.
Silent electrical vehicles are also perfectly capable of running over pedestrians and cyclists, especially if they are silent.
It is not nearly as good as 100% pedestrianisation.
@CHRISMITCH – “Silent electrical vehicles are also perfectly capable of running over pedestrians and cyclists, especially if they are silent.”
From July next year, all new electric and hybrid models seeking approval in Europe will have to emit a noise when travelling at low speeds. By 2021 every electrified car on the road will legally have to be retrofitted with devices that can be heard at low speeds.
Jaguar had to abandon a “sci-fi spacecraft” inspired version of the artificial sound generator on its I-Pace electric car when pedestrians “kept looking up at the sky when they heard the noise rather than at the road” during pre-release testing.
@Aleks – I’m going to be crabby and suggest that the audible warning issue – which I don’t discount in the slightest – needs a little more thought from manufacturers and operators than a mere klaxon or strange noise. In Oxford Street, with buses passing (even in the future) many times an hour, the streets will be permanently filled with highly audible sound pollution – whether it’s the sound of alien space craft arriving, or – more likely – an unpleasant “This bus is approaching” shout . Either way, if the noise is there all the time, it will be ignored and/or hated, which rather defeats the purpose of the exercise.
People with long memories will recall the battery bus experiment in the pedestrianised centre of Leeds in 1972 where the silent approach problem was identified but never resolved to the satisfaction of other street users. There , as I recall, the noise offered was a low buzz every 15 seconds or so.
“Silent electric vehicles”
How soon people forget … scenes like this
Though you could usually hear one coming, as the poles/wires/tyres made a sound.
( I would have thought a recording / simulation / generation of a noise similar to a small motor-bike or motor-scooter would be ideal? )
This is not a new problem – my father can recall the arrival of trolleybuses in Dartford – which quickly acquired the nickname of “The Silent Death” as they were far less audible than the trams they replaced.
A lot of different sounds have been evaluated. Engine sounds did not give as good direction cues as a white noise mix. The external generator operates for speeds below 20kph to avoid pedestrians stepping in front of vehicles. Above those speeds the tyre and wind noise is considered comparable to regular vehicles whose motors are much quieter these days.
The mandated noise cannot be turned off so places like Oxford Street where continuous traffic is all moving at less than 20kph will be interesting.
Here’s the Jag
https://youtu.be/NzA6_zy0GXM
Bus moving announcements have their own following
https://youtu.be/IMAWnvv7l3M
The Audible Vehicle Alert System (AVAS) warns vulnerable road users as the electric vehicle (EV) approaches at speeds up to 20km/h but cannot be heard from inside the vehicle.
The 56dB(A) minimum required by European legislation for all new EVs from July 2019 is emitted from a speaker located behind the front grille, can be heard in every direction and cannot be disengaged. The alert increases in pitch and volume in line with the speed of the vehicle and, when in reverse, is accompanied by an additional tone that indicates the change in direction.
Guide Dogs for the Blind campaigned hard to make it compulsory for quiet vehicles to have sound generating systems built in and turned on, including when the vehicle is stationary at a pedestrian crossing. ( https://youtu.be/13JwfssNI3I )
It wouldn’t need to have the penetrating rumble ofa diesel engine, though, so that should be a win.
@ PoP – Fair enough but I do wonder if we have yet another potential disagreement between the two City Halls. Do Westminster want *full* electric double deckers? If yes then hybrids, no matter how slowly they move, don’t meet that criteria. Therefore they may have landed the Mayor with a multi million pound bill for new buses he and TfL had no expectation of. If WCC are happy to accept euro6 hybrids then I agree there’s no issue as that’s what TfL are doing anyway. Let’s hope people are being clear about what they actually mean behind the scenes.
And as for the utter nonsense of buses pouring out alarm noises and flashing lights because pedestrians have forgotten how to cross the road because their phones or headphones are more important – good grief. More needless capital and maintenance cost, more performance risk loaded into bus contracts to try to achieve an unachieveable safety objective. Unless you take buses completely off the road then there is zero prospect of there being no death or injuries resulting from the operation of buses. What next? – a man with a red flag walking in front of each bus in London? This is what happens when politicians are misled by aggrieved campaigners.
Loading all the responsibility for no deaths or injuries on to bus companies and ignoring the responsibilities that all other road users bear is a ludicrous policy. As Graham H states the alarm noises will soon disappear into the background due to over familiarity just as all other noises do if you are exposed to them regularly. I don’t really hear I-Bus announcements any more nor most tube or train “next station” ones either.
In crowded pedestrian dominated streets, I suggest an old fashioned tram bell alarm sound for such silent public transport vehicles, whatever form of wheels they run on, triggered by the driver or in an autonomous future by the on-board obstacle detection equipment when they encounter recalcitrant human, animal or vehicular blockages. That would be in addition to any ambient hum or whine they emit. It helps too also if the transit swept path is clearly marked by some means in the streetscape, e.g. by rails, paint, kerbs, alternative colour/texture of paving, or a continuous line of bollards as PoP suggested. Perhaps also an exaggerated screech of brakes and tyres and a continuous horn could be played if a sudden severe brake application is required (accompanied by a string of expletives from a special driver’s side speaker!).
@Mark T – Seems to work in the Bahnhofstrasse in Zuerich, but then the Swiss are always likely to be more sensible than London jaywalkers. I do like the idea of recorded expletives – presumably in several different languages to reflect the possible targets?
I am sure i have heard buses with bells – tram like – but I can’t recall where. They would be in marked contrast to the blast of the horn from the new Routemasters that their drivers seem to like!
WW: I think the most important beneficiaries of any mandated noise from otherwise-silent moving vehicles (not just buses, I hope) will be people with limited or no sight. (Who do not all choose to have assistance dogs).
Any spin-off benefits to the inattentive or careless will be incidental. Although I could add that staring at a phone when you should be looking where you are going is bad, but not really bad enough for a death penalty.
@100andthirty
I have heard them in Metz, but the whole bus is trying to pretend it is a tram.
My concern is more about too much noise at low speeds. if a bus is doing less than 5mph (walking pace) and not rapidly accelerating it really should not be necessary to emit any added noise. I could well imagine buses travelling that slowly along Oxford St.
A collision at walking pace wouldn’t actually be that serious but if the noise is almost continuous people are going to mentally switch off to it.
I remember the Leeds plan and the invitation for the public to send in their suggestions for a suitable noise. My favourite was ‘clip clop’.
I for one find the notion of requiring electric vehicles (of any variety) to emit extra noise pollution far from a good idea.
For one – yes, electric motors are quiet – but not that quiet. They are still very much audible, especially AC ones.
Furthermore in this scenario buses are far from the quietest, or most dangerous road users. Are we going to mandate that cyclists also emit a tone at all times?
In any case, it seems like for the 80% of people walking along in headphones (figures plucked out of thin air) the tone will make no difference in safety whatsoever, and for the remaining 20% it’ll, as mentioned above, very quickly become an annoyance that will be ignored.
I can’t imagine it being much fun for anyone living near a road with a low speed limit such that every passing vehicle is emitting noise.
For those who are visually (or otherwise) impaired, I think there are fare more creative and far less disruptive solutions than subjecting everyone to loud tones – a radio beacon (bluetooth or similar) that signals to any nearby devices that there is (for example) a moving bus nearby would be far less annoying and more flexible to boot.
One could configure a vibrating wristband (or a smartwatch) to receive such signals – or a smartphone with headphones if so desired.
The point being, that those who need such aids get them in a far more effective manner, and those that don’t (or choose not to use them) are not needlessly inconvenienced. – potentially in a counterproductive way.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2018/october/london-s-bus-network-to-meet-new-world-leading-bus-safety-standard
From next year (2019), all new London buses must include the following safety measures:
Technology that automatically limits the speed at which buses are able to travel
An audible alert for pedestrians and other road users of the presence of buses
Slip reduction measures inside buses such as high-grip flooring
More blindspot mirrors and reversing cameras
Special warning pedal indicators for drivers
Tony Wilson, Managing Director at Abellio London Bus, said: ‘We welcome the introduction of the Bus Safety Standard to help further improve safety for bus passengers, pedestrians and other road users.”
Last year’s Driven to Distraction report said 25 people were killed “on, or by buses” in the past two years. Two thirds of these were pedestrians. It partly blamed the deaths on high levels of driver stress, tiredness and frequent interruptions from control centre and passengers. The London Assembly report urged TfL to rewrite its contracts with bus operators. The existing terms reward drivers for meeting punctuality targets rather than safety ones.
The regulations only make sense if applied to all electric vehicles. Some mentions of bus, van, and truck, what about motorcycles or scooters. Namely all DVLA registered road vehicles.
The European Parliament has voted to introduce mandatory ‘acoustic vehicle alerting systems’ (AVAS) for all new electric and hybrid vehicles to alert vulnerable road users.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe adopted a similar regulation which ensures that “silent vehicles” will no longer be dangerously silent. The regulation states that quiet cars and category N goods vehicles should be fitted with AVAS to create artificial noise in the speed range from 0mph to 12.5mph.
For the historians referencing previous incarnations of electric vehicles the safety concerns over the lack of noise on a vehicle is not a new problem. In the 18th century to avoid sleighs trampling people to death the state of Baltimore slapped one-dollar fines on anyone who didn’t make their sleighs noisy enough. Drivers in Baltimore had to use the “warning” device of sleigh-bells and other cities followed suit.
How does all this ridiculous proposal work for (and affect) all those pedestrians who happen to be simply walking on the pavements alongside those sound-emitting vehicles? If they are anything like me, then those pedestrians will be driven off those pavements, too, to somewhere else quieter.
Proposed safety measures cannot be argued away on the sole grounds of irritation. They can only reasonably be opposed by either claiming that they will not actually save the lives/injuries which their proponents claim, or that the lives/injuries are “worth paying” in some sense.
(The above comment should have been decorated with “in my opinion”. It was not intended as any kind of moderator’s ruling on arguments which can be put forward).
@Malcolm
Or, as I would argue is the case here – if there are other equally, if not more effective ways of achieving the same thing, without the irritation.
Even if those ways are more expensive, it then becomes a question of the price of safety Vs environment.
As for ‘lives/injuries are “worth paying”’ – I think you could probably quite reasonably argue that constantly being bombarded with noise also has a health impact, that could probably be quantified in terms of injuries/deaths.
Whether one outweighs the other is a question that I am however nowhere near qualified enough to answer…
Driving would be safer if every driver was forced to wear a helmet.
But, that would be quite irritating so it’s been rejected as an option.
Having been unlucky enough to travel on a 430 bus the other day that had “this bus is ready to depart” announcements going off after every stop, I trust that Tfl’s compulsory there’s a bus in the area audio warning will be wordless.
“Noise cancelling headphones”. I’ll leave it there….
PoP
Clip Clop”
😂
DM1
[unrelated accident report snipped]
[frequently repeated complaint about tube announcements snipped]
Graham Feakins,
Why is it a ridiculous proposal?
Assuming it is some form of white noise, which it probably will be, how can that possibly be worse than what you have now which is a diesel engine that is not only noisy but sends out vibrations?
My idea is that rather than create a new noise, you amplify the existing noise (there must be some) gradually reducing the level of amplification once close to around 20 mph. You achieve the objective and few people would be even aware you are doing it.
How you ever managed to put up with whiny trolleybuses and trams is a mystery.
There probably is a case for some noise from well designed electric vehicles. From my personal viewpoint a bell as used by classic trams, police cars and ambulances has the advantage of being relatively pleasant to the ear while different enough from other ambient noise to warn pedestrians.
I do not recall trolleybuses as “whining”, they were very pleasing to my ear (possibly excepting the Belfast trolleybus at Carlton Colville whose rear axle reduction gearing is very audible). First generation trams I will admit to being a bit exciting – try the recording of the last tram down Dog Kennel Hill for a real thrill!
Apologies for being late to the electric vehicle noise party. Toronto’s streetcars have since the 1860s had bells to announce their presence, and have mostly operated in mixed traffic. Pedestrians and drivers along the routes have become accustomed to the warning gongs. However with the addition of new streetcar lines in the lates 1990s (510 Spadina, 509 Harbourfront), auto drivers on those streets were not used to the bell, which resulted in numerous cars colliding with streetcars on the Spadina line. As a result, the TTC fitted car horns to all streetcars, which work much better to warn drivers and errant pedestrians. Personally, the bell is a quaint sound, but the horn is much more insistent.
Nonetheless I am not advocating horns for electric buses, only to provide an example of the lack of practicality that bus bells may have as a warning device.
A bell might be suitable as a “special” warning (if the driver spots unusual danger), replacing a horn. It would get very tiresome if dinged continuously while moving (replacing engine noise).
@Malcolm
A bell is certainly less intrusive than a horn, providing a less annoying option to a horn.
@PoP – London trolleybuses never whined – hummed, may be, and there was a distinct singing sound announcing their arrival if the OHLE was highly tensioned. Older eastern European trolleybuses made a grinding sound – the ones in Kaunas sounded like slot driven model cars – but I suspect this had everything to do with poorly maintained gear trains, and nothing to with the choice of traction.
@Malcolm, LBM: In Brussels the T2000’s had both. They used a bell when pulling away or in an “excuse me” kind of way. The horn was more in the “move or get hit” category as well as the “F*** Off” class. It was loud enough to make your bones vibrate if too close…
I wonder if the requirements @ALEKS mentions (20 October 2018 at 21:45) are ambitious enough? Telsa is already delivering situational awareness and automatic collision detection & avoidance, removing the reliance on the driver to react.
Some idea of what Tesla sensors & software are delivering
https://electrek.co/2018/10/15/tesla-new-autopilot-neural-net-v9/
Maybe Tesla should be asked to build a “new electric bus for London”?
@PETERW TfL is starting
https://cbwmagazine.com/tfl-launches-bus-safety-standard-to-eliminate-fatalities/
Transport for London (TfL) has launched its Bus Safety Standard (BSS), which it hopes will spell an end to bus accident fatalities in the capital.
All new buses introduced into the city by 2024 must comply with the standard.
Produced in conjunction with the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), the new standard was unveiled at Milbrook Proving Ground on 16 October.
Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB): These systems use forward-looking sensors (such as lidar, radar or cameras) to identify the risk of an imminent collision, warning the driver at first and then applying the brakes if they fail to respond;
Aleks….it’ll be interesting to see if all this kit that can stop the bus in a hurry transfers the risk from outside the bus to the inside. One of the reasons that the magnetic track brakes on trams are only used in the direst of emergencies is because of the risk to passengers who are, of course, unrestrained.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/23/stagecoach-gives-trial-to-uk-first-full-sized-driverless-bus
Stagecoach will trial a full-sized driverless bus being designed in partnership with the manufacturer Alexander Dennis Limited and the technology company Fusion Processing. The operator said the bus would be able to park in depots and drive itself to refuelling and wash points. No driver will be required when it is off public roads. Stagecoach said it believed wider use of self-driving buses could be safer, more efficient and save space within its depots.
Even on the road with a driver, the bus could be safer for other road users, with the sensor system able to give more warning of cyclists or pedestrians in blind spots or unexpected proximity.
Two 12-metre Volvo 7900 electric buses are to be deployed in Singapore next year equipped with autonomous driving technologies. This includes GPS and LIDAR laser technology systems for charting, positioning and detecting obstacles around the vehicle.
The aim is that tomorrow’s autonomous buses should be able to charge their batteries, drive through the depots to the vehicle wash and park – entirely autonomously.
Making buses autonomous is one future technology trend that makes sense because they tend to involve well-established, predictable routes.
Mercedes-Benz Future Bus vision for autonomous operation on busway from Schipol:
https://www.evobus.com/fileadmin/user_upload/FUTURE_BUS_TRAILER_MASTER_HD_80mb.mp4
@100ANDTHIRTY ’emergency’ braking risks
The idea is that the bus is looking in every direction and farther out to anticipate hazards so reactions will be gentler than driver reactions.
In the US Transit Agencies are getting into autonomy to save cash. Buses are pretty safe—they kill 0.11 people per one billion passenger miles, compared to 7.28 in cars or light trucks. But they still injure people, and that costs serious money. Transportation planner and consultant Jerome Lutin found US transit agencies spent $4.1 billion on casualty and liability claims between 2002 and 2011. A safer public bus would mean cash for public coffers.
How to halt an autonomous bus ( Or any other autonomous vehicle )
Get an old food-tin, make a small hole & attach to a length of string, then walk to right next to the expected swept path & twirl the can round your head ….
And how long before the local children work this little “game” out I wonder?
@Aleks, @100ANDTHIRTY ’emergency’ braking risks
Those brakes also tend to make a bit of a mess of the track…
Talking of which
This news item indicates that “autonomous” taxis could be on London’s roads in 3 years.
Though I hope, not like that shown in the picture, as it’s wheels are exposed!
Like the chaff that military planes drop to foil radars. Even a bouncing ball might do the trick for AVs…
Aleks. The bus “looking further ahead”.
Call me skeptical. I’ve driven numerous Volvo cars that have automatic emergency braking. On one occasion – on a road reduced to one lane because of parked vehicles – where I was approaching a passing place (with a bus coming towards me) I was adjusting my speed to be able to pass the bus at the available passing place. The car computers suddenly decided I was heading for a head on impact and applied full braking (parachutes – the lot), leaving my stationary and blocking the road. I wish I could describe the bus drivers expression – I had no need to ask for his thoughts….
I am very skeptical of how autonomous vehicles (be they buses, AdLee minicabs or Tesla) will cope with the virtually anarchic behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists in central London.
I recall using buses on route 76 from City Road to Blackfriars over a decade ago when they were first fitted with sensors that gave drivers an audible warning of obstructions. Many parts of the route had building works with scaffolding. In themselves each site was perfectly safe and did not pose any dangerous threat. However, the sensors announced each one and it became as irritating as the current “this bus is about to move” when broadcast so frequently.
Wasn’t it Tesla who hit a pedestrian in autonomous mode? And when asked to explain it announced that the pedestrian shouldn’t have been jaywalking?
Anecon,
If I remember the investigation into the incident correctly, it wasn’t quite like that. The pedestrian made a sudden unexpected and unpredictable move. It was decided that the outcome would have been the same if the car was not in autonomous mode. Basically, the cause was that the pedestrian should not have been jaywalking.
Note: this was in the US where there is an obligation on pedestrians to obey the rules of the road. In this country there is no generally such legal requirement although if , as a pedestrian, your road behaviour is really bad there is always the very slight risk of being charged under the common law of creating a public nuisance. For example, repeatedly crossing a busy road for no legitimate purpose or deliberately causing drivers to have to brake sharply would count. Of course, if you are involved in an altercation with a vehicle the civil law of tort kicks in and if you were to blame don’t expect either sympathy or compensation.
The death in the States with the autonomous vehicle was actually a cyclist – though I seem to recall that at that moment she was pushing her bike. The vehicle computers couldn’t work out what the shape ahead was so didn’t react at all.
IslandDweller – and I also recall it was a Volvo and the standard emergency braking system (which would have stopped the car) had been disabled in favour of the autonomous systems
That sounds like a different incident. So maybe two deaths. What we don’t know is how many people would have died if autonomous driving had not been permitted.
I think there is confusion here between Tesla – who have had a couple of fatalities to drivers while using the slightly misleadingly named ‘autopilot’ feature, Google – one of whose cars collided with a bus in a low-speed accident caused by the software’s false assumption about how the bus would move – and Uber, one of whose cars killed a woman pushing a bicycle across the road during a trial of self-driving cars in Arizona. In the Uber case the woman was ‘jaywalking’ but it soon became clear that the driver who was legally responsible for driving the car was not looking at the road as they were meant to, and that Uber’s corporate culture had been pushing the technology ahead beyond their technical ability. The Uber trial was shut down in the wake of the accident.
With TfL’s buses the proposal seems to be for a system that assists rather than replaces the driver. A particular advantage of sensors would be in monitoring blind spots.
Westminster’s Oxford Street proposals sound very much like Camden Council’s scheme for Tottenham Court Road.
The Mayor gave himself wriggle room in his manifesto by promising to work “towards full pedestrianisation”.
The balance between braking suddenly and injuring passengers on board, or not doing so and hitting someone, (or swerving and risking hitting someone else) is a real issue. Part of the problem is that when a driver makes an instinctive split-second decision, you can’t fairly blame them for whatever choice they make in the circumstances. But someone sitting in a software development office devising a rule for what to do in cold blood would be expected to be much more accountable for whatever choice they make. Or should such rules be legally mandated? If so by whom? It’s the Trolley Problem in real life (with the additional complication of imperfect information).
The balance between sharp braking that might injure passengers on board and the safety of pedestrians will be different for cars and buses anyway. Car passengers are (should be) wearing seat belts, and have air bags (and indeed, if any car brakes were sufficiently fierce that their use could injure the occupants, they would set off the air bags). Bus passengers rarely have seat belts or air bags.
@Island Dweller – one of the surprising things I learnt from the incident in which the woman cyclist died, was the reliance on a library of images as the trigger for braking. I had naively assumed that sensors would pick up *any* object within the forecast swept path of the vehicle and reliance on a fixed predetermined library seems to be just asking for trouble. As the insurance advert says, no one expects a horse in a kaftan on the road to Aylesbury.
Re Graham H,
Which is a big reason for the difference in accident rate between Uber and Waymo (google) whose accident rate is at least 20times lower than Uber’s.
Pedantry alert:
It can’t be ’20 times lower’; that would be x (-19). It might, however, be 1/20th.
Re Roger B,
Pedantry covered by at least 20 times I notice you didn’t comment on the use of at least.
Waymo’s acccident rate has been falling substantially this year so nearing 50 fold difference on the latest info I found (previous info was from the beginning of the year). (Uber some what distracted???)
@NGH as suspected, although one imagines that in a street such as Oxford Street, with its enormous numbers of jaywalkers, cyclists, billboard men, horses in kaftans and so on, any vehicle that stopped because of a wayward object wouldn’t actually make any progress at all.
I remember recently travelling on an all-electric 98 that seemed to be constantly making an annoying bleeping sound in Oxford Street, presumably as a warning to pedestrians. It was turned off once we got east of Centre Point.
Graeme H: “an autonomous vehicle along Oxford street wouldn’t move”
Yes, I am sure you are right. But does that mean such vehicles should be allowed to place other users of Oxford Street in danger so it can move? Perhaps, re-wording the question, what accident rate are we prepared to accept for other road-users so we can use the technology? Some of the proponents of this technology seem to have a cavalier attitude about these risks.
@Anecon – I agree – the proponents of autonomous vehicles tend to see them purely in the context of a dominant or even exclusive user – pedestrians, cyclists, bikers, horse riders, all must accept a very onesided view of risk (cf the “jaywalker” accusation already cited)
I’m not sure it’s right to say that an autonomous vehicle on Oxford Street would never move, it would move but very slowly. Perhaps this is no bad thing.
Trams seem to work in shared public spaces in other European cities – eg Alexanderplatz in Berlin. But Oxford Street is a whole other level of pedestrian overcrowding.
@Graham H: I had naively assumed that sensors would pick up *any* object within the forecast swept path of the vehicle
Which is fine until you cause a pile-up on a dual carriageway because your car has stopped to avoid a plastic bag blown onto the road (or an animal – and then there’s a whole set of arguments about prioritising people over pets etc) – it’s quite possible that there are no ‘right’ answers at to how to program autonomous systems at all.
@Phil E: annoying bleeping sound
White noise would be more localised (especially from a directional speaker), be less annoying, and also easier to locate (it’s easier to tell which direction white noise is coming from).
@Ian J – absolutely (or the deliberate chucking of a football, say, across the carriageway, or GT’s can on a string). Like you, I doubt that there is a completely satisfactory answer, and although I understand the born-again AVists’ argument that AVs should be safer than human drivers, they are describing a “perfect” world as if it would be “normal”. Fine, I’m a great believer in freedom of belief, but not when it starts randomly killing and maiming people or requires curtailment of other freedoms to make perfection work.
Graham H,
Less publicised are the incidents on YouTube where a car in autonomous mode (albeit supervised by a driver) has reacted and prevented a collision due to the bad driving of a human in another car. I really don’t think you can lightly dismiss autonomous driving.
I would imagine that by the time buses have all the safety devices fitted you might as well go that extra step and consider autonomous driving in Oxford St where it is low speed. It could potentially bring additional safety benefits. Deliberate interference there would probably be swiftly detected and the person arrested. I don’t see why introduction there should be any different to anything else. You investigate, produce a safety case and, if the argument stacks up, you implement it.
I seem to recall we had similar issues for years with trains in automatic mode but I think today it is generally accepted that these are far safer. They will be the cause of collisions that humans would have prevented and vice versa but the test is whether the safety record speaks for itself – or not.
@PoP – I’m sure that they will become safer idc and that there are cases where they avoid accidents that humans might cause. Of course, but equally, they do not operate in a totally-controlled environment (trains can come very much closer to that) and until they can do that, there there will always be difficult risk assessments. What, however, is utterly wanton, is to introduce new technology without such a risk assessment, relying on anecdote and optimism. It should be a matter of hard analysis, whereas at the moment, we are collectively being fed propaganda.
@PoP/GH
I think ‘real’ autonomy, rather than just limited task automation with the driver still in the front seat and taking legal responsibility, stands a good chance of appearing first in some public transport applications, particularly in low speed pedestrian dominated environments such as Oxford Street. It is much easier task to make a safety case argument for this where the momentum of the vehicles is necessarily limited and traffic is less varied than on a multilane high speed highway with varying weather conditions, spilt loads etc. Something else that might work well with PT is to re-employ the former driver as a DLR-like ‘bus captain’ (lets call them conductors or something!) who could normally do customer service and revenue protection duties in the saloons while the robot gets on with the driving. They would also be an authority figure to shout effectively at youths deliberately attempting to block the forward progress of the vehicle and could attend to any problems with the technology, including taking over manual control if neccessary.
@Mark Townend – “taking over manual control if necessary.” And therein lies the rub – endless fun for insurers and lawyers as to the meaning of that last word…
@GH – Agreed, but a single employer, single technology transit scenario, on well surveyed and controlled fixed routes, must be far easier to manage safely than a full road network multi-ownership ‘utopian’ free for all with technology from multiple vendors. I was also assuming broadly that the system would fail safe, i.e all uncertainties and malfunctions would result in a stopped or severely slowed vehicle, so the trained conductor’s ability to fault find and take over in manual override would mainly be neccesary for service quality to prevent route blockage.
I’m not really talking about a scenario when, bowling along a future highway at 90 in a personal car, a disembodied voice suddenly pipes up: “Bing bong, this is your car speaking. Due to developing sensor calibration errors, your vehicle appears to have exceeded the parameters of its vendor insurance cover and you must take over full manual control immediately in order to remain legally insured. You may not re-engage autonomy until this vehicle has been serviced and re-certified by a qualified technician. Thank you and have a nice day”
@Mark T – Positively Simpsonesque – “Thank you for buying the 1952 Magnox reactor…”
There are always going to be difficult decisions while vehicles are being driven on a public road, such as do you kill the pedestrian when swerving to avoid another car or kill yourself while crashing into it. But the choice is whether these decisions are made at the last moment by a driver in panic mode or made in advance and then put into an algorithm. At least, in principle there is a chance that making decisions in the latter way has a touch of objectivity about it. And in reality this sort of choice is highly improbable and in most cases it will be far easier to make an objective judgement.
Most of the issues raised about AVs can be addressed by asking what would happen with a manually driven vehicle and most will be responded to in the same way.
Mark T writes: “I was also assuming broadly that the system would fail safe”
I think this was the problem with the Jaywalker; the system didn’t recognise that it was a pedestrian so ignored the obstacle. It failed dangerous.
It seems to me the system might work, as GH says, in a closed environment with very few unexpected objects. Many people argue “it recognized a car and avoided an accident”. The problem is that it doesn’t always recognize things that are not cars. Or things totally unexpected (hence not programmed into the code).
As an aside, taking the tube yesterday I noticed the driver held the train since a toddler was scampering up the platform alone, even though the child was comfortably behind the platform edge line. The driver only left when the his mother took his hand (the driver ignored the adults walking up the platform although they were closer to the platform edge). That reasoning is way beyond anything we can currently programme.
@Quinlet – yes, provided a comprehensive body of case law precedents could be built up or even a library of what ifs – very little sign of that at the moment, and the technology seems unlikely to deal with the more outre incidents any time soon, and certainly not in the early 2020s.
@Quinlet:in reality this sort of choice is highly improbable
I think in the case of an autonomous bus on Oxford Street one scenario at least is likely to be very common – someone standing on the edge of the road looks like they might step into the path of a bus. Do you brake hard, and risk injuring standing passengers on the bus who will fall over, or do you brake more gently, or not at all, and risk running them over if they do step in front of you? Bus drivers make that kind of split-second choice in busy areas all the time. But they have the advantage of a human’s understanding of human behaviour.
and in most cases it will be far easier to make an objective judgement
The point behind the trolley thought experiment is that it demonstrates that it is very hard to come up with an objective and internally consistent standard of ethical behaviour that everyone can agree on. Small changes to how the problem is framed can cause illogically large changes in how people think you should act.
I think modelling current driver behaviour is a dangerous approach, because the decisions drivers make are based on outdated or incorrect information, and is over-weighted towards saving their own lives and property ahead of other’s lives.
A head-on collision with another car at 70km/h** (43mph) gives the driver a 90% chance of survival. These rates are continually improving thanks to new technology – this 2012 figure is probably out of date.
https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Import/Documents/_versions/4041/Speed-crash-facts-2012.1.pdf
Yes most drivers will chose to swerve and run over a pedestrial instead of colliding with a car, giving the pedestrian a less than 15% chance of survival.
**Colliding with an oncoming car both moving at 70 km/h is equal to colliding with an immovable wall at 70 km/h. See https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45578/is-two-cars-colliding-at-50mph-the-same-as-one-car-colliding-into-a-wall-at-100 – counterintuitive physics is yet another reason why drivers make bad decisions!
@ Bob – not to mention having to model the behaviour of all other people, animals, and machinery which might be on or adjacent to a highway.
The big difference between an AV and a manually driven bus in the situation of someone standing at the kerb is that a driver can make eye contact or otherwise visually understand that the person has seen the bus and is not likely to step off. Is AI technology anywhere near to being able to make those distinctions?
Herned,
No, but it is recognised amongst some AV advocates that some feedback to acknowledge a person’s presence is the “next big thing” to tackle. It would make a lot of sense to invest in this area given the opportunity of relatively slow autonomous pods – typically suggested for ‘the last mile’.
It seems to be generally accepted that machines are more reliable than humans.
This may be true but, at present, machines are built by humans and as they become more complicated there are more components – designed by humans – to go wrong. Witness Peckham Rye (a badly specified or made relay), the compete collapse of the SW main line this week and Islanddweller’s Volvo.
It sometimes seems that those responsible for increasingly complicated systems are unaware of the risks of failure, the implications of failure and the associated lack of resilience.
If each advance in the technology of, say, signalling or vehicle design increases complexity by an order of magnitude, then every component has to be an order of magnitude more reliable for overall reliability to remain the same.
Is this happening?
@Bob
Thank you, you make my point for me very well.
@Roger B
What appears to happen is that as any particular technology matures, the number of failures diminish. However, those failures that remain tend to be much more serious and have much wider ramifications. You can see this in a couple of examples. For cars, up to the 1960s drivers were expected to be able to make minor repairs at the roadside – remember when all drivers were expected to carry a pair of their wife’s stockings with them (the sexist stereotypes are all of the time) to act as a temporary replacement for a fan belt; services like the AA and RAX were very numerous to provide more serious roadside repairs. These days it would be a very brave driver who was able to do anything under the bonnet and many don’t even know where their bonnet release catch is But when a car does fail on the road it is much more likely to be a serious incident requiring a removal truck.
Similarly with computers. In the 60s and 70s most computer users were expected to and able to make amendments to software and tinker with hardware to get better results. Computers even in the 80s regularly crashed. These days its rare and most software is heavily protected to prevent a user from tampering with it. But a failure is much more serious and harder to deal with.
AVs are likely to follow the same pattern, but it took cars more than a century to get to maturity, computers less than 50 years, and AVs are likely to be quicker still.
@quinlet – I think your point is true of all rule-based systems, even non-IT ones such as the law – as time progresses, the exceptions and unexpected problems get more and more abstruse as the obvious and frequent get dealt with. Doesn’t mean they are any less important, of course.
RogerB,
An interesting point and a concern for many. The trick seems to be to either build in redundancy or plan for failure and be able to operate in a degraded mode in the event of a fault.
I think that POSA (‘Proceed on Sight Authority’) signals now being introduced is a classic case where it is recognised that one cannot rely on technology however good it is and one needs some kind of backup. And the backup to POSA signals failing is to do what is currently done – require the driver to stop at the red signal, get permission to proceed to the next signal and stop at that signal to report his arrival there.
Similarly if ATO fails on a tube train there is still protected manual (PM) which can be used providing the ATP (Automatic Train Protection) element is still operating. If that fails then it is a maximum of 10kph which cannot be overridden.
So in answer to your question, in general components are getting more reliable but there tend to be more of them which to some extent negates the improvement. However, a well designed system keeps to a minimum then number and frequency of failures that are critical to a device, appliance or vehicle functioning.
To expand on what PoP says re the backup to POSA (or other) signals failing, an illustration of this was given by GTR a week ago as a result of a power failure in the Peckham Rye area – not just one signal but 21 were affected! Per GTR: “A track circuit failures means the signalling system is unable to automatically verify if the next section of track past the affected signal is clear.
The rail network is designed so that if a signal stops working, trains will stop before they reach it. Whilst this issue is ongoing, train crew will stop at the affected signal and contact the signalling centre to confirm their location, which at this point the signaller will verbally authorise the driver to continue towards the next signal. This process will add time to every trains [sic] journey, which means services can experience short delays.
In one of these instances for example, a signaller on one of the panels has to individually talk trains through 21 separate signals. Due to the amount of trains that run through this area, this can be a very time consuming process and as a result of this, some trains will not run, may be subject to diversionary routes (Route knowledge permitting) or may be cancelled.”
The “route knowledge permitting” is another aspect altogether and worthy of consideration. Long-standing route knowledge practice on Southern/Thameslink territory is being drastically cut back to worrying levels.
@Quinlet
“What appears to happen is that as any particular technology matures, the number of failures diminish. …………..For cars, up to the 1960s drivers were expected to be able to make minor repairs at the roadside ”
The reduced likelihood of breakdowns is reflected in the conversion of many motorways to “Smart Motorways”, essentially converting the hard shoulder to a running lane but with the facility to convert it back again temporarily on the rare occasions that a breakdown occurs.
Re Timbeau,
“essentially converting the hard shoulder to a running lane but with the facility to convert it back again temporarily on the rare occasions that a breakdown occurs.”
Except it appears HE and DfT’s understanding of breakdowns appears a bit off as the closures are happening more frequently than expected and it appears there aren’t enough laybys and the distance between them is too big so those Smart motorways aren’t performing as well as expected.
@Quinlet,Timbeau,NGH
More common “breakdowns” are driver fatigue or lack of a spare.
https://www.itv.com/news/central/2018-10-21/crash-after-m1-driver-stopped-in-a-motorway-lane-to-take-a-rest/
Smart roads do not have smart drivers, without a specific lane drivers stop in whatever lane they breakdown.
Without driving on the left being enforced some rest in the mostly empty “extra” inside lane.
Laybys are used as rest stops by out of hours drivers.
Not advocating driver tyre changes on the shoulder just explaining a statistic.
I have always been of the opinion that smart motorways are one horrendous crash away from being discredited. It is bizarre to think that every other country in the world is keeping hard shoulders on their motorways and England is uniquely able to not have them
Aleks. “Lack of a spare”. Many new cars don’t have them. I’m got a brand new car* on rental this week – in the boot all it has is just a tiny can of foam.
(It’s not based on price – this car is made by a supposedly ‘premium’ German manufacturer)
Island Dweller:
I don’t have a spare either – haven’t had one since 2008. The only time I have ever had a running flat I called the RAC as I wouldn’t be certain I was doing it right and I suspect many others are the same. I have seen far fewer”break downs” on smart motorways than on the hard shoulder, but then often the hard shoulder stops appear to be people doing unsafe things like letting their children pee in the bushes. Smart motorways do discourage this sort of behaviour. When I have seen breakdowns on smart motorways they are dealt with by lane closures and speed limits very effectively.
My understanding is that the capacity of a motorway is governed by the junctions, not the plain carriageway.
I don’t think adding the extra lane increases the throughput, it just provides somewhere to get vehicles off the non-motorway road network and so reduce congestion there.
I’m open to correction, however.
@ISLANDDWELLER “Lack of a spare”. It’s not based on price – this car is made by a supposedly ‘premium’ German manufacturer.
It is rational and done to meet emissions / fuel targets by reducing weight.
Half of drivers are now women who rarely change tires.
Tires are far larger and mounted with air tools.
Spacesavers are temporary and require a second change in short order.
Many company / lease / rental / insurance cars include a recovery service.
New car buyers accept it.
@RogerB
This is the case for every road and it explains why, for example, putting in a bus lane does not increase journey times for general traffic so long as the reservoir behind the next set of traffic lights is sufficient to clear the next green phase. The green phase is almost invariably less than 50% of the total cycle whereas the bus lane is at most 50% of the link capacity. The remaining general traffic lane may have longer queues, but they move faster.
@Aleks – “Half of drivers are now women who rarely change tires.” – My late mother was capable of changing tyres; moreover, she long refused to accept a new car which didn’t have a starting handle…
@Aleks
” “Lack of a spare”. New car buyers accept it.”
Not all new car buyers. My last car didn’t have a spare. Never again.
(And it seems that many customers are of like mind, for the makers of that model now include a spare as standard equipment)
Smart Motorways are just “adding an extra lane on the cheap”. Although I’m not so sure if it’s that cheap (certainly not quick, see: M3).
Re SH(LR) et al.,
The M3 was theoretically meant to be lower cost as the works were meant to be organised around what was efficient for the contractors. That of course left out the cost to users of a longer period of disruption.
The schemes also appear to duck doing much about junction issues in most places and end up a bit underwhelming on the delivered benefits side as a result. The M25 – M3 junction being a good example and the failure to do more than the barest minimum means much of the rest of the scheme is wasted a good deal of the time. In reality addressing M3 issues they need to have good think about the M25 for at least 1 junction in either direction and possibly adding a new Thrope Park junction on the M3 to reduce the need to use the M25 as the local access to the M3 (The M3 is much quieter inside the M25 than just outside). The thinking just appears to be about what happens on the Motorways and not what happens off them and why people chose the routes they do.
The more recently authorised schemes appear to want more rapid progress than the M3 scheme.
When the dust has settled a bit I suspect there will be fair bit of difference between the success of the various types of Smart motorway schemes.
Re Aleks,
Agreed on the first bit (emission gaming especially with the potential VED benefits), a fair number of breakdown calls are because people find themselves unable to loosen the wheel nuts that have been done up with air tools combined with corrosion of different metals issues with the manufacturer supplied tools which can easily be rectified with a decent 2′ extending bar and socket for ~£10 and pot of Copper grease to prevent the corrosion (a much bigger issue with alloys) for less than that. This helps the breakdown firms getting people moving again success rates!
Cars with only the repair and inflate aerosols are estimated to be responsible for 5-6% of all call-outs.
Yes capacity of a road is sometimes constrained by the junctions. But not always, or every road would comprise one lane in each direction. As ngh implies, it all depends.
The split between who can safely change a tyre and who cannot does not neatly follow gender, even if there is a bit of correlation. But blow-outs can often, these days, occur in places where no-one not properly trained in safe self-protection should attempt a tyre change.
Costly though smartening motorways is, it probably still costs somewhat less than “proper” widening, particularly if land acquisition and/or bridge rebuilding is necessary. An approach I would like to see more of, though, is the emergency-stop lanes combined with storm-drainage provision, as seen on parts of the A12 near Brentwood and quite a few other places.
@POP, 25 October 2018 at 23:49
POSA is a very good example of a ‘failback’ system. IMO it is a much safer implementation in UK than the similar ZS1 ‘ersatzsignal’ in Germany which in some implementations can completely bypass ALL interlocking controls, including opposite direction route locking on a single line, and that, misused, contributed to the tragic collision at Bad Aibling in 2016:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Aibling_rail_accident
While the complete lack of interlocking controls might have been justifyable during WW2, when the ZS1 was first introduced, to keep troops and materials moving, for modern high frequency passenger operations it particularly risky, as safety is reliant solely on one individual’s actions. Bad Aibling was not the first time ZS1 had been implicated in serious incidents.
Another UK example of ‘failback’ is the conventional signals and legacy warning and protection systems retained in the Thameslink core alongside the new ETCS/ATO equipment. While the legacy equipment can’t maintain the full throughput of the new system, it is still the quickest and most effective way of removing a train from the core if some of the more complex on board systems are causing trouble, and also allows completely non ETCS equipped trains to be scheduled through at very quiet times.
@malcolm
“The split between who can safely change a tyre and who cannot does not neatly follow gender, even if there is a bit of correlation. ”
Indeed – changing a tyre on my own car on a country lane in mid-afternoon – happy to do it on my own. In a hire car in a strange city at 11pm : I’d rather have some company. (I was the same gender both times…..)
@timbeau – depends on whether the company is previously known to you…
@Graham H: Southern Armagh car Registration, a Mini Metro on its last legs and sagging, Tottenham late in the evening, all your belongings in the car and a police van going past with a policeman recognising the plates as being South Armagh.
A flat tire is superfluous really! As this was the mid ‘90’s I think you can guess what happened…
It didn’t happen to me, but a former girlfriend… They did at least help her repack and escorted her to her new flat…
@SHLR 🙁
@Malcolm
The advantages of smart motorway plans instead of anything else in terms of not having to acquire land are very substantial:
– less cost (obviously)
– less political impact: any form of compulsory purchase for road widening is fraught with political difficulties primarily because there is no choice about which land is needed. Particularly when this involves housing demolition, the political consequences can be huge and may sink the scheme.
– less delay: anything with compulsory purchase will involve a public inquiry and you can easily add two, if not three, years onto the process. This delay alone might be sufficient to cause the scheme to fail on economic grounds.
@GH
In my case it was Edinburgh, and the company I chose to help me out was the RAC. (I would have tried it myself if they’d said they’d be a while, but they were with me in 20 minutes).
Re SH(LR),
IB or XZ in the reg plate then?
XZ series didn’t start until 2020, so unlikely to be seen on a Metro, but it could have been LZ. IB more likely though.
Oh, for an edit function – XZ started in 2010
@timbeau – I had in mind the passing “street” company rather than the any rescue organisation… (Mind you, some of the Edinburgh passers-by can be vicious scone wielding brolly carrying patrons of Jenners).
@Timbeau
This kind of South Armagh reg plate?
http://www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/?p=33953
@Paul
Lovely picture.
The intricacies of the NI vehicle registration system are a bit off topic, I fear, so let’s not get too involved, but all six counties (and two cities) had moved to three-letter codes by 1973, so a Metro (built 1980-1998) would be something like XIB
@Timbeau: I think it was something like that, yes. The Mini Metro never really recovered from one house move and so was scrapped in ’98 or thereabouts… To be replaced with something more innocuous like a P reg. Clio..