pedestrianising Oxford St rejected bt Westminster Council

[mercalia]

"Sadiq Khan’s plans to ban traffic from Oxford Street has been dealt a huge blow after Westminster council rejected them as “unacceptable”.

well maybe Sadiq should introduce a special super pollution zone along that road - £1000 for every vehicle?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khans-plan-to-make-oxford-street-trafficfree-is-halted-by-council-a3825131.html

[mjr]

How is part of the A40 like Oxford Street not part of the Transport for London Roads Network? Did one of Kahn's predecessors give it away to the car-crazed Westminster Council?

The PDF map shows that TfL only have the Westway to Euston Road and Embankment routes running E-W through Westminster which seems a bit sparse for such a rectangular central borough and I guess that's why there are few good routes through, with CS3 using the Royal Parks who seem awkward but less so than Westminster.

Is it difficult for the Mayor to take control of either Oxford Street - Holborn or the Strand?

[pwa]

I hate being on Oxford Street. If that is shopping in London, they can keep it. I'm used to shopping in Cardiff, where I can walk around the streets with no traffic noise.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4782561 ... 6?hl=en-GB
I know other cities have good pedestrianised shopping areas too. I just don't get why people think London is a good place to spend money.

[PH]

Politics

Local Conservatives are under pressure from three candidates standing for the single-issue Campaign Against Pedestrianisation of Oxford Street party in next Thursday’s council election.
Westminster Conservative leaders are worried that CAPOS could draw enough votes away from the Tories to allow Labour to win West End, Marylebone High Street and Bryanston and Dorset Square wards.

But it's last weeks news - the Tories lost four Westminster Council seats yesterday but still have overwhelming control of the council so they can stop huffing and puffing and maybe talk some sense... until the next time.
This isn't a party political point, I've heard enough unrealistic stances and pledges in the last few weeks to despair at all of them.

[MikeF]

Sadiq Khan wanted to ban cycles as well as motor vehicles from Oxford Street.

[mjr]

Sadiq Khan wanted to ban cycles as well as motor vehicles from Oxford Street.

Had that been decided? It was uncertain in the last consultation I saw.

[MikeF]

Sadiq Khan wanted to ban cycles as well as motor vehicles from Oxford Street.

Had that been decided? It was uncertain in the last consultation I saw.

I'm not sure if it had been decided but it was a plan.

[mercalia]

seems like it has been rejected by Westminster Council

"On 7 June 2018, Westminster City Council (WCC) announced that its Leader had ‘taken the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street off the table for good’. This in effect unilaterally discarded proposals to improve Oxford Street and the surrounding district that we had jointly developed with the City Council over the previous two years. WCC is now preparing its own proposals for Oxford Street."

[gnvqsos]

I feel the WC are right to allow traffic through Oxford Street.It is a large shopping magnate which draws in loads of shoppers,mann of whom are aleady overburdened by debts,Mr Khans proposals will help the shops there most of which represent the worst excesses of capitalism,If opassed the displaced traffic would be re-routed into other roads destroying their sense of calm,and dispersing pollutants amongst a wider population.People now know not to venture into Oxford Street,unless they among the mindless seeking a 13th cheap Prmark blouse-or seeking to upgrade their Alcatel to a Nokia or a Samson.

[mercalia]

Mayor and TfL launch broadsides at Westminster

https://lcc.org.uk/articles/mayor-and-tfl-launch-broadsides-at-westminster

[Vorpal]

I feel the WC are right to allow traffic through Oxford Street.It is a large shopping magnate which draws in loads of shoppers,mann of whom are aleady overburdened by debts,Mr Khans proposals will help the shops there most of which represent the worst excesses of capitalism,If opassed the displaced traffic would be re-routed into other roads destroying their sense of calm,and dispersing pollutants amongst a wider population.People now know not to venture into Oxford Street,unless they among the mindless seeking a 13th cheap Prmark blouse-or seeking to upgrade their Alcatel to a Nokia or a Samson.

There is evidence that businesses in pedestrianised zones do better than those on busy thoroughfares. Furthermore pedestrianisation has led to in increase in trade for shops in large cities all over the world.

Permitting traffic presents barriers to many users, including the blind, those with mobility issues, parents with small children (who must be physically restrained near traffic, when walking on their own would be better for them), people with respiratory conditions, such as asthma, COPD, or allergies that leave them sensitive to pollution, and others.

The removal of motor traffic increases mobility for many people, and only decreases for people who using a mode of transport that is not appropriate for populated areas (i.e. motor vehicles). I do not have an ojection to allowing people who need to drive, or be driven due to disabilities. But those are the only motor vehicles that should be permitted during business hours. And if even some of those can prevented by providing better mobility equipement, such as mobility scooters, and other aids (dare I say electric bikes ? ), then they should be provided.

[gnvqsos]

There is evidence that businesses in pedestrianised zones do better than those on busy thoroughfares,and thereby draw customm away from the independent retail sector Furthermore pedestrianisation has led to in increase in trade for shops in large cities all over the world,thereby inflicting damage on rretail,centres in smaller settlements.

Permitting traffic presents barriers to many users, including the blind, those with mobility issues, parents with small children (who must be physically restrained near traffic, when walking on their own would be better for them), people with respiratory conditions, such as asthma, COPD, or allergies that leave them sensitive to pollution, and others.

Consequently the pedestrianisation will disperse all these negative externalities away from Oxford Street into other residential areas.People can choose to go to Oxfors St and indirectly choose to accept the negatives mentioned above-people in residential areas cannot exercise this option.

The removal of motor traffic increases mobility for many people, and only decreases for people who using a mode of transport that is not appropriate for populated areas (i.e. motor vehicles). I do not have an objection to allowing people who need to drive, or be driven due to disabilities. But those are the only motor vehicles that should be permitted during business hours. And if even some of those can prevented by providing better mobility equipement, such as mobility scooters, and other aids (dare I say electric bikes ? ), then they should be provided.

However people who use buses are put at a disadvantage,and those on mobility scooters will probably live too far from Oxford Street to benefit.It will benefit the more affluent and penalise the poor who depend on buses,and who find their little corner shop eliminated by the competition posed by Oxford Street and the predatory pricing policies used my multiples and chain stores.

[mjr]

There is evidence that businesses in pedestrianised zones do better than those on busy thoroughfares,and thereby draw customm away from the independent retail sector

I've not heard of that before. Have you a link, please?

Furthermore pedestrianisation has led to in increase in trade for shops in large cities all over the world,thereby inflicting damage on rretail,centres in smaller settlements.

Nothing stops the smaller settlements pedestrianising except their car-crazed councillors. That's not a good argument for big cities not to demotorise.

Consequently the pedestrianisation will disperse all these negative externalities away from Oxford Street into other residential areas.

That's not a consequence in full, because of traffic evaporation. Then what residual traffic does disperse could be managed and directed by making residential streets resident-only.

However people who use buses are put at a disadvantage,and those on mobility scooters will probably live too far from Oxford Street to benefit.It will benefit the more affluent and penalise the poor who depend on buses,and who find their little corner shop eliminated by the competition posed by Oxford Street and the predatory pricing policies used my multiples and chain stores.

I don't follow the reasoning of this bit at all:
Why will it benefit the more affluent? They still can't drive on a pedestrianised street.
Why will it penalise the poor? Buses will still call nearby.
Why will corner shops be eliminated by this when they've survived so far? Nothing will necessarily change in their environs.

[Bmblbzzz]

It seems strange to draw an opposition between "businesses in pedestrianised zones" and "the independent retail sector," when often it's independent shops that are found on pedestrianised streets. Perhaps an assumption is being made that pedestrianised zone = mall?

[gnvqsos]

[quote][/quote
It seems strange to draw an opposition between "businesses in pedestrianised zones" and "the independent retail sector," when often it's independent shops that are found on pedestrianised streets. Perhaps an assumption is being made that pedestrianised zone = mall?2

The issue is about Oxford Street,which I imagine has few independents.There was no assumption as the case in point has been specified.Malls I think are enclosed,and often are built with the intentioin of excluding .You rarely see cars driven round Meadowhall or Trafford Centre these days.