We need imaginative thinking to make London's Oxford Street work for everyone

London’s deputy mayor for transport, Val Shawcross, has made some welcome statements on reviewing the transport disaster that is currently Oxford Street, particularly in the pragmatic and practical approach of taking this in stages, beginning with more pedestrian weekends, and a three-stage ‘conversion’ plan, an obvious requirement when you start to make a closer study of the area (‘Shawcross sets out ambition for traffic-free Oxford Street’ LTT 22 Jul). 

As anyone seriously committed to delivering safety in any area of human activity will point out, there is a hierarchy of measures that can be taken to manage the risk of harm. Safety can be optimised by completely separating the activities that through conflict of movement or purpose deliver a harmful result when they coincide. However, in the real world you will never eliminate every point of intersection at the drop of a hat and the deal has to be progressive and pragmatic. 

Oxford Street is currently a big bus station – 26 bus stops served by 20 bus routes using part or all of the street – only four travel the full length – and almost one bus movement passes through Oxford Circus every ten seconds with the peak hour timetable, and that’s not allowing for the stopped traffic periods when pedestrian traffic crosses. 

Around Bond Street there are three bus stops for each direction, alternately used by some of the services, with others running past. It presents a melting pot of hazards, as pedestrians wriggle between buses to cross the road and drivers make tight moves with the limited vision provided by the external mirrors, especially on the nearside. Add to that mix the turn-back traffic at Holles Street and John Prince’s Street near Oxford Circus and it’s no surprise that Holles Street with 18 reported serious pedestrian injuries is where the nation’s most dangerous pedestrian crossing is located, with ten others in the top ten on the same part of Oxford Street.

The really telling detail comes when you notice that at peak times the main bus routes require more than twice the number of buses to operate each service and the end-to-end journey speed, inclusive of stops, drops to 4.1mph – slower than a brisk walk. The wall of buses is often far from full, suggesting that they are not delivering people along the corridor efficiently. For just one route the extra buses required for peak service would, at typical rates, cost over £4m per year. 

So, what could the vision be and how might it be delivered? As an immediate option, the six bus routes using the east end of Oxford Street can be split or simply turned at Centre Point and a single, free-to-board, electric bus service could operate between Centre Point and Marble Arch. Several of the West End services could also be turned or re-routed, with the ultimate interim deal being a simple, single and free-to-board bus service that would need say eight-to-ten stops instead of 26, and at most 12 buses, with this allowing for a rotation to recharge the batteries and change drivers.

As with Manchester and many other enlightened cities, the ‘cost’ of a free-to-board city centre bus route is paid back in the savings made – in reduced peak vehicle requirements and the costly waste of road space and vehicle resources in a ‘wall’ of barely half-filled buses.

This would allow a simplified carriageway requirement – one lane each way (no overtaking or turning lanes required) and perhaps a central median lane for cycling, emergency vehicles and breakdowns. The low vehicle count could still move the same passenger flows with a higher frequency and average journey speeds than any of the current services. 

Ultimately the street still needs wheeled transport for those who are challenged by a 2km walk for whatever reasons, and that wheeled transport has to be more immediately accessible than diving below and waiting for a Crossrail or Central Line train to arrive. I’d suggest to almost reprise the Buchanan concept, and deliver grade separation by raising the electric bus lane by around three metres, to allow pedestrian circulation below, and deliver an all-weather facility under the canopy. 

Perhaps neater, and an attraction in its own right, would be to deliver this as a Wuppertal-style suspended system, using bus-style vehicles, and providing the experience of travelling Oxford Street with a grandstand view of the crowds below. The elevated transport system could also provide modular freight delivery and waste collection at first floor level for many of the premises, if this is planned in from the outset. Use of a bus-style vehicle could enable the system to move the suspended ‘cars’ on road wheels for maintenance.  

At street level the shorter distance journeys can be catered for by pedicabs – but again these should be free to use and sponsored by branding. This works, with eight years proof from the free pedicab sponsored by Barrhead Travel that operates in Glasgow city centre. The cost to the sponsor would be equivalent of buying the use of just one six-sheet bus stop advertising panel, and brings the added benefit of an informed human presence on-street who can promote the sponsor, provide visitor information, and passive surveillance. 

Free pedicabs could at a stroke drive out the less welcome exploitation by riders charging whatever fare they think they can get away with, and the current over-supply of machines of variable provenance cluttering up unofficial pedicab ranks. The demand for a pedicab ride through the West End is satisfied and the problem – lack of robust regulation – can be resolved.  

Dave Holladay is an independent integrated transport specialist. He supports efforts to deliver change in how road crashes are investigated, with a highways version of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) and remedies delivered by a robust and empowered regulator, mirroring the process initiated for rail by the Ladbroke Grove inquiry.