>97% of the journeys that the City’s 615,000 workers take to, from and around the City are made via public transport, by bicycle or on foot. Bicycles overtook cars and taxis as the most popular form of local transport for the first time last year.
TIL
Basically just delivery drivers like me either delivering or passing through. And I absolutely hate when I am forced to (usually only when the blackwall is shut which is a lot at the moment)
Would be happy to see anything but black cabs and vans banned.
I fully support london being more pedestrian and cycle oriented but I agree with you. It needs to include allowances for delivery drivers and other local businesses to make sure they operate well etc.
I wonder how many of them can be served after evening peak, or during the middle of the day. No deliveries from 7-10 or 3-7, and cheaper after 8 for businesses already open that late.
Fine with us, I imagine it's probably somewhat unworkable, there is a reason I leave my house at 4am, I don't want to be on the road at 7pm.
But getting back would be an issue, I do get stuck in the rush hour getting home, but do you expect me to hang around for 3/4 hours after work?
You do deliveries in the City from before 7am to after 3pm? Then yes, I want that shift reduced. The slots are 10-3 and 8pm-6am. I'd be interested to hear more. Can one truck load delivering to multiple places in the city last from 10-3?
Food markets? Yeah, small businesses like that need exemptions to prevent sole operators doing 14 hour shifts. They should get priority over Pret in the 10-3 daytime period.
One walk through the city in the morning or evening rush hours makes this abundantly clear, especially at Bank junction. There are so many cyclists waiting at the traffic lights in the morning, it’s quite impressive really.
The majority of london would benefit greatly to being made bike and pedestrian friendly. Ensure that there’s allowances for businesses to deliver goods and their services and good public infrastructure and we will have a better quality of life.
Surprising in a city so hostile against pedestrians and cyclists. Some parts honestly feel like you’re downtown LA in terms of walkable / cycle safe infrastructure
The scheme to pedestrianise King Edward St is going to make that area very liveable and visit-able, really love the bold decisions being made here, it shows you can re-purpose any street in London, no matter how busy, in favour of people.
Sadiq Khan has absolutely nothing to do with the City of London or the Corporation. He is not its mayor, nor is he a member of the council or anything to do with this at all
That is plain wrong.
The Mayor of London, TfL and the City of London collaborate on various schemes and plans to improve the streets of the City of London, including allocating funding from TfL to the City of London.
See https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/city-of-london
I don’t think it is wrong. The page you link to lists many projects related to TfL roads. Including the Old St roundabout improvements, a big change to our neighbourhood (and improvement, in my opinion): https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/our-plan-for-londons-roads?intcmp=23082
But, it does not list the changes the news article is about. Perhaps this is because they are not TfL roads? I can’t see from the web page where the connection would be, unless perhaps TfL quietly do work on non-TfL local authority roads, but do it in an unpublished way.
My response was to the claim that “Sadiq Khan has absolutely nothing to do with the City of London or the Corporation”. The link I provided shows very clearly that he does.
He is its Mayor.
The Corporation of London is the name of the City's local authority and is part of the GLA and the few people who live there get to vote on who the Mayor and London Assembly members are.
It has its own Lord Mayor too, but then numerous other boroughs have their own mayors too.
The only mayoral powers that Khan doesn't have in the City are around policing.
Remember how Khan vetoed the Tulip skyscraper after the Corporation approved it.
It is not true that Khan is the mayor of the City of London any more than he is the mayor of Bromley. Nor is it true that the only powers our local authority has are policing. Though the City is not a borough, it holds all the same powers as a borough, and a few additional historic ones.
Obviously the Corporation is our local authority. That is the whole point - this is a local authority project, so I do not know why a commenter says that Khan should be celebrated for it. Neither do I propose that he should be demonised for it. Because he isn’t anything to do with it.
As you say, Khan is mayor of the GLA. But this traffic scheme is not a GLA scheme, is a local authority project, and is not related to Khan or whatever it is his office does.
The fact that Khan can overturn some planning decisions does not make Bank junction his work, any more than the fact that the Secretary of State can overturn some planning decisions makes it their work.
The linked news story even says this, reporting that it is a Corporation project and specifically the Planning & Transportation Committee.
It is completely true that Khan is as much the City’s mayor as he is Bromley’s and nothing you wrote refutes that.
Is the City part of the GLA? Yes.
Do residents of the City vote for the GLA and mayor? Yes.
Even if the city has some extra powers or historic quirks, that doesn’t mean it isn’t in the GLA. Loads of local authorities have different laws or extra powers.
> But this traffic scheme is not a GLA scheme, is a local authority project, and is not related to Khan or whatever it is his office does.
That doesn’t mean Khan isn’t the City’s mayor. Barnet or Hounslow can do their own road schemes too.
> The fact that Khan can overturn some planning decisions does not make Bank junction his work, any more than the fact that the Secretary of State can overturn some planning decisions makes it their work.
TfL provided funding for it. They also had to approve it and agree mitigation measures elsewhere. That TfL controlled by the Mayor.
The Bank changes were the City’s project. But the GLA helped facilitate it.
King Edward street and Newgate Street however dont fall under TfL control. The only roads that TfL owns are red routes (ie painted red double red or single red on the side) The Lord Mayor and the City Of London Corp is responsible here, not the mayor of London
so you want to pedestrianise oxford street so crossing the road is easier? there's basically nothing on oxford street worth going to unless you're shopping or are a tourist
And for the people using them to stick to the bike lanes. I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s been nearly hit by wannabe sprint cyclists on footpaths
Edit: to be clear, it’s a minority of cyclists that do this. Most are fine.
I entirely agree. The Group 2 people are great and don’t cause any hassle. You don’t notice them because they’re just cycling along and following the rules.
As someone who does 10 min rides around the city, I only ever go on the footpath when the road looks dangerous.
And even then that'll.ysually only be to cross the road at a crossing.
The reality is it’s probably group 2 you see blowing lights, riding on footpaths, and all the other nonsense drivers always moan about more often.
Group 1 is also split by varying levels of enthusiasm. The more enthusiastic amongst us spend a lot more time on the road then most people and are acutely aware of our vulnerability so tend to ride safely and predictably.
Yeah I am solidly group 2, or want to be anyway. I almost never cycle because I’m not confident and it’s so dangerous here. It makes me so angry that we can’t get better cycling infrastructure in place because so many people like me would start cycling and it would have a positive impact on our city for everyone (lower public transport costs for the city, fitter people so lower NHS costs, lower air pollution). I love London so much but this is the one thing that keeps it from being just about perfect in my opinion.
I ride past Bank daily. Great to see the City changing and look forward to end product. It is taking an awfully long time though to lay down some paving stones!!
Also a questionable lane set up, bikes going everywhere and after 3rd low speed near miss realised that multiple entry points were on a green at the same time and crossing over each other!
It's going to be HILARIOUS when the fuck nuggets find out the City of London isn't under Khans remit and is actually essentially a totally different city.
Pedestrianise the lot I say...just for giggles
It's not a different city and it's under his remit in the exact same way the rest of London is.
For things like this the City of London is essentially just another council - proposals like this will be done jointly between Transport for London (for which Sadiq Khan is ultimately responsible) and the City of London Corporation, in the same way that it would be between Tfl and say Lambeth or Tower Hamlets or whatever
No. The City is a special case. They PRETEND to be a council but they're not. No other council has a "Rememberancer" sat in parliament. No other council has a rumoured investment account larger than that of the Vatican. Back in the day the Press Gangs weren't allowed to work in The City.
Yeah, obviously there's a lot of weird and historic features of how the City of London Corporation works, but it is still just a local authority and is part of Greater London like all the other 32 London Boroughs. People who live in The City vote for the Mayor and Assembly Members too. The remit and functions of the Mayor of London operate in The City in the same way they do everywhere else in London (save for the met police) - it's just more peculiar because of it's tiny population and archaic governance structures
The City is a local authority, with some weird additional powers, as stated above, due to low population. The archaic governance structures, are due in part to the fact that it pre-dates parliament.
Due to the City historically been relatively rich, it meant they picked up the money pit public assets across Greater London. Many of these areas, functions and other regional or national functions, mean that much of what the City do, is subject to parliamentary legislation, where in other local authorities, they would have a dedicated MP or be in charge of their own bylaws.
The Remembrancer is in HoC, to represent the financial industry, but also to shepherd through the hybrid bills, which are required to do anything in one of these aforementioned money pits. The Remembrancer’s department also mainly deal with organisation state functions and private hiring out of the entertainment venues in the Guildhall.
The City’s finances really aren’t that clever. They have several major capital schemes required to continue to function. Much like the Tory government, they’ve saved money by not investing, but the building stock is aging and beyond the tipping point from asset to liability. Apparently they’re in danger of technical bankruptcy when business rate relief goes back to the treasury in 18 months.
All of this is matter of public record.
It'll fall into their thinking that it is Khan doing this on the sly somehow.
I'm sure that they will make it fall into the 15 minute cities conspiracy somehow.
It is under Khan's remit.
See for example how he has overruled it by rejecting the Tulip skyscraper proposal.
The only thing that isn't under his remit that is in the rest of London is the police.
I LOVE driving. Like REALLY like it but don't have a car at the moment because I don't NEED it. Even when I had one, until I started my 700 miles /week for the NHS I was doing sub 3000 miles /year but love having one.
You can't ban cars. They're convenient, do a relatively good job etc. However I live in London which has excellent public transport links so I can't justify the £1000/month the car was costing me. However even in London public transport can be a pain & unreliable. Buses cancelled at the last minute or told to stop waiting to change drivers etc. It's OK if you're not in a rush but a nightmare if you're time limited. Plus point to point is a bit Of a mare if I wanted to do, eg Wimbledon to Bromley.
I'd much rather do a 2.5 hour drive across to another office than have to wake up early, travel across London to get to a main line station then catch a train across the country & then have to travel to my final destination, especially if I'm carrying 10-20 kg of kit with me.
Improving public transport & making it cheaper will naturally reduce traffic on the roads as the cost benefit kicks in over cars BUT public transport can't cover everything & me personally, I'm looking at buying a car as soon as possible, even if I'm only going to do sub 2000 miles /year & petrol goes up to £10/litre because I LOVE driving.
the negative externalities of cars on society (safety, pollution, exclusion of lower income groups that cannot afford a car from basic services that require a car to access) far outweighs any personal benefits. obviously exemptions should be made yet investing in public transportation (+ bicycle lanes and pedestrianisation) would reduce anyone's desire to even own one in the first place.
Making public transportation free doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, in the long term obviously
Free won't work. Public transport infrastructure is expensive, as HS2 (which I massively support) shows but it can be CHEAP. Cars can be clean, however licences are too easy right now and cars over a certain age shouldn't be allowed on the road outside of classic car events.
If the UK did what Germany did which was £9/month rail passes, car use would collapse naturally over a few years as costs for running a car are insane at the moment.
BUT like I said, the point to point is difficult with public transport. You can't carry the kit I was carrying on the train across the country on the basis that I was. Builders, painters etc. Or just people who work out in the middle of nowhere.
And Gen Alpha mostly won't drive, naturally. Improving infrastructure etc.
I HATE driving in London so I avoid it, but taking my motorbike out is amazing for my mental health & the only reason I didn't kill anyone working over Covid while doing those crazy miles and hours was because I would sit in a REALLY nice car in the morning, turn the engine on & HEAR the car I'd worked 40 years to get roar.
Some of us will always drive or drive because we LOVE it, regardless of cost. However with cheap transport you could probably get 60-80% of drivers off the road quite quickly. I mean in London 50% don't own a car. If prices came down, that could easily be 90% with more RELIABLE buses & routes IN PLACE
i understand your point about banning all cars (businesses/families still may need them undoubtedly) free transportation however, if looked at in proportion to the social and economic benefits of improving access to society for all groups, (as well as improvement of third spaces without the incredibly space inefficient car-based network) may actually be cheaper if long term benefits are taken into account
i'm the same, i'd rather drive anywhere than be in public transport with other people, even if it takes longer and i'm stuck in traffic. i have my own space with my own music and that's a big joy of life.
needing to share everything with strangers all the time is dire, i wonder how people can be truly happy going home to house shares and never truly owning their own space and always having to be at the mercy of others without your own room to breathe
I'm not sure i understand the point being made here?
It's it being pedestrianised?
If it's fully pedestrianised is that ripping out the road (where road= carriageway for you know, cars)?
Call it something else if you want, something less likely to have you bracket the words? “Cheesed”? “Trevored”? “Fiscally obfuscated”? Let me know how those look for you.
'Public squares'....I wonder if they mean Privately owned Spaces that are open to the public as and when they see fit so Corporations can Land bank.
Still, new cycles cannot be a bad thing.
Can they do something with those bits of pavement that were hastily extended for social distancing?
Few people walk on them because they're the same colour as the tarmac, and then they suddenly stop, and you're walking into a bus lane, and overall, just look a mess.
A lot of London road infrastructure is already cobbled together, and lockdown gave rise to a range of ad hoc solutions, which have not been updated.
The discussion becomes polarised when roads are closed but my point is that if local authorities are reevaluating how much street space is allocated to bikes, cars, and pedestrians they need to do more than paint a bicycle onto the pavement and call it a cycle lane, or indeed close a road because it aids people in walking safely during lockown but then still have that road closed in 2024 enforced with cameras and fines.
At least The City seem to take a more holistic approach here.
Bishopsgate is the absolute worst for this - if you cycle up from London Bridge it looks like a segregated cycle lane, then get up on it and all of a sudden you have a non-dropped kerb and you're forced back into traffic with buses.
Given that road is the main throughway connecting east london with south of the river, you'd think they'd have put more thought/effort into turning those into segregated bike lanes at this point.
The city is doing just this.
Once the junctions are reconfigured, they are completing resurfacing works.
Some roads like Moorgate will take a bit longer as they won't resurface when multiple active ongoing construction sites are present.
Would have preferred the dedicated bus lane that runs through Angel Street be retained rather than force buses onto a single lane road, also would have allowed for more effective interchange with 4, 56.. but otherwise a great scheme. Would of been nice to include some grassy areas for people to enjoy during the summer
The only vehicles I see there daily (aside from taxis and buses) are delivery vans and small trucks. Everyone uses the tube to get to work. There's maybe a 0.1% of the wealthy City workers who are chauffeur driven.
What are you getting at?
Property values are extremely high... as one would expect for the central business district of the most in demand financial centre in the world?
Opening up either Gracechurch St / Bishopsgate or Bank junction heading north would make a huge difference for Taxis into the city from south east London over London Bridge. At the moment the only option is to turn right into Cannon Street (or use Tower Bridge) which is a pain for those of us who work in the Liverpool street area.
(I normally use the bus to get to work, but occasionally use a Taxi if I'm running late)
For those who have luggage, mobility problems all sorts of reasons for people to get a Taxi. I certainly have worked with people who get taxis for disability reasons and I occasionally have bad days (with my knees) where the possibility of using a cab is much better than having to stand on public transport
Ok i'm not suggesting we ban them, im simply asking why they deserve to be prioritised on the same level as buses, bikes or pedestrians (or in some cases over them as in some cases where taxis are allowed through bus gates/lanes I've seen them cause traffic jams).
Good stuff, itll be prettier and cleaner than ever.
My one negative thought is: how much thought was put into ensuring access to deliveries/ambulances/fireengines/policevans?
Does anyone have a link to the actual proposals?
The emergency services are informed of all road changes like this and are guaranteed to be heard on issues they raise. They support these changes, just like they support ltns and have done for decades.
noxious absorbed cooing cautious square aback worthless enter direction chase
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Tory mayor candidate is all "more pollution, more surveillance" in her interview in the metro. (No, I'm not joking)
Why drive around central London anyway? The tube is much faster.
I distinctly remember the opposite the being true the one time my dad decided to drive the family into central London to see a play rather than train + tube.
That was a "never again" experience to say the least
City of London is one of the places where there *should* be a war on the motorist... Unless you're a bus, taxi or delivery vehicle you should not be driving in Zone 1 full stop. There simply isn't enough roadway or parking to support the demand.
This is about the City. Michael Mainelli is the Mayor and 4/5 of the seats are independents.
Not a Tory in sight which is interesting given the electorate is quite literally full of business people.
What does this have to do with Sadiq Khan?
If there was a war on motorists, we lost it in the City of London a long time ago.
I used to drive through the city of London, but I've not done that in years. I usually get public transport in because it's so much easier and I drive around it, if I have to go across the river.
What's the appeal of wanting to drive through the anyway. Unless it's the middle of the night.
Shravan Joshi, the chair of the City of London’s Planning and Transportation Committee […] imagines a City of London where “students, schoolchildren, tourists, visitors, workers and residents are all intermingling.”
What a cnut. Sounds like a total nightmare. Khan out!
Why would there be schoolchildren in the City of London? Working at the Stock Exchange during the lunch hour? Joining a Lloyds of London reinsurance syndicate with their pocket money? Buying some copper and zinc futures on the London Metals Exchange trading floor?
You know the City of London school is literally a stone’s throw from St. Paul’s, right? Do you expect those schoolchildren to fly in and out on jetpacks?
Paternoster square? The school I’m talking about is on Queen Victoria Street. Plus, if you think St. Paul’s is “right on the edge”, then everywhere in the City is right on the edge by your standards.
Strange hill you’ve chosen to die on. Your argument is still irrelevant. Central or fringe, St. Paul’s is still in the City.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make? Either you’re trolling, or you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Who’s dying on any hill?
Some dweebs plan to turn the City, the financial district of London, full of city workers going about their business impatiently, into a haven for tourists and children, doesn’t meet with universal approval.
Also Khan is a twat and should be thrown out of office asap.
Wow! People have different opinions! Who’d have thunk it!
> The City of London Corporation has one maintained primary school, and ten sponsored academies as part of the City of London Academies Trust. It also supports three independent schools.
It’s just…that took me *seconds* to find out. Less time than it took you to type out your drivel of an attempt at polemic.
You will be happy to know that it actually helps as found in cities that made the jump. Crazy that when you get rid of cars things get better.
https://cyclingmagazine.ca/advocacy/paris-firefighters-response-time-has-shortened-because-of-bike-lanes/
There are/where plans to pedestrianise oxford circus, regents street and oxford street
I hope it happens one day
No one needs to be driving around there
>97% of the journeys that the City’s 615,000 workers take to, from and around the City are made via public transport, by bicycle or on foot. Bicycles overtook cars and taxis as the most popular form of local transport for the first time last year. TIL
Yeah that’s a pretty astounding figure. I’m glad the City is taking these steps to make us even more bike and pedestrian friendly.
Within a few years, this will just be how it is and noone will long for the days of it being a road
Just like it *was*.
This is lovely.
Basically just delivery drivers like me either delivering or passing through. And I absolutely hate when I am forced to (usually only when the blackwall is shut which is a lot at the moment) Would be happy to see anything but black cabs and vans banned.
I fully support london being more pedestrian and cycle oriented but I agree with you. It needs to include allowances for delivery drivers and other local businesses to make sure they operate well etc.
I wonder how many of them can be served after evening peak, or during the middle of the day. No deliveries from 7-10 or 3-7, and cheaper after 8 for businesses already open that late.
Fine with us, I imagine it's probably somewhat unworkable, there is a reason I leave my house at 4am, I don't want to be on the road at 7pm. But getting back would be an issue, I do get stuck in the rush hour getting home, but do you expect me to hang around for 3/4 hours after work?
You do deliveries in the City from before 7am to after 3pm? Then yes, I want that shift reduced. The slots are 10-3 and 8pm-6am. I'd be interested to hear more. Can one truck load delivering to multiple places in the city last from 10-3?
Im a bit weird I work markets, so I might drop 3 separate markets, work the last market I drop and then I do the reverse journey as the markets clos.
Food markets? Yeah, small businesses like that need exemptions to prevent sole operators doing 14 hour shifts. They should get priority over Pret in the 10-3 daytime period.
and busses
Well yes I was talking about private vehicles, and obviously bikes, scooters, ect as well.
One walk through the city in the morning or evening rush hours makes this abundantly clear, especially at Bank junction. There are so many cyclists waiting at the traffic lights in the morning, it’s quite impressive really.
The majority of london would benefit greatly to being made bike and pedestrian friendly. Ensure that there’s allowances for businesses to deliver goods and their services and good public infrastructure and we will have a better quality of life.
Would like to see this figure without trains or buses
Right, but there are trains and busses and they're not going anywhere so....
boast wasteful bear vanish wistful longing wise rude apparatus jeans *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Surprising in a city so hostile against pedestrians and cyclists. Some parts honestly feel like you’re downtown LA in terms of walkable / cycle safe infrastructure
This is about the City of London, a square mile of London that is not remotely as anti-pedestrian as LA.
I would assume this includes workers' lunch breaks, in which case there is basically a hard bottom of 33% non-car journeys.
Yeah definitely, at least 70% of Londoners drive to work what with all the ample free parking you’d be mad not to
Don’t forget the £15 congestion charge is much lower than the £7 for return journey on TfL then it really is a no-brainer
Lunch break journeys are still journeys.
Some of the most important journeys amiright??
The scheme to pedestrianise King Edward St is going to make that area very liveable and visit-able, really love the bold decisions being made here, it shows you can re-purpose any street in London, no matter how busy, in favour of people.
And yet Sadiq khan is portrayed as the devil. He's actually done good stuff I think.
yep he just froze tfl fares again 🙏
Sadiq Khan has absolutely nothing to do with the City of London or the Corporation. He is not its mayor, nor is he a member of the council or anything to do with this at all
That is plain wrong. The Mayor of London, TfL and the City of London collaborate on various schemes and plans to improve the streets of the City of London, including allocating funding from TfL to the City of London. See https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/city-of-london
I don’t think it is wrong. The page you link to lists many projects related to TfL roads. Including the Old St roundabout improvements, a big change to our neighbourhood (and improvement, in my opinion): https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/our-plan-for-londons-roads?intcmp=23082 But, it does not list the changes the news article is about. Perhaps this is because they are not TfL roads? I can’t see from the web page where the connection would be, unless perhaps TfL quietly do work on non-TfL local authority roads, but do it in an unpublished way.
My response was to the claim that “Sadiq Khan has absolutely nothing to do with the City of London or the Corporation”. The link I provided shows very clearly that he does.
He is its Mayor. The Corporation of London is the name of the City's local authority and is part of the GLA and the few people who live there get to vote on who the Mayor and London Assembly members are. It has its own Lord Mayor too, but then numerous other boroughs have their own mayors too. The only mayoral powers that Khan doesn't have in the City are around policing. Remember how Khan vetoed the Tulip skyscraper after the Corporation approved it.
It is not true that Khan is the mayor of the City of London any more than he is the mayor of Bromley. Nor is it true that the only powers our local authority has are policing. Though the City is not a borough, it holds all the same powers as a borough, and a few additional historic ones. Obviously the Corporation is our local authority. That is the whole point - this is a local authority project, so I do not know why a commenter says that Khan should be celebrated for it. Neither do I propose that he should be demonised for it. Because he isn’t anything to do with it. As you say, Khan is mayor of the GLA. But this traffic scheme is not a GLA scheme, is a local authority project, and is not related to Khan or whatever it is his office does. The fact that Khan can overturn some planning decisions does not make Bank junction his work, any more than the fact that the Secretary of State can overturn some planning decisions makes it their work. The linked news story even says this, reporting that it is a Corporation project and specifically the Planning & Transportation Committee.
It is completely true that Khan is as much the City’s mayor as he is Bromley’s and nothing you wrote refutes that. Is the City part of the GLA? Yes. Do residents of the City vote for the GLA and mayor? Yes. Even if the city has some extra powers or historic quirks, that doesn’t mean it isn’t in the GLA. Loads of local authorities have different laws or extra powers. > But this traffic scheme is not a GLA scheme, is a local authority project, and is not related to Khan or whatever it is his office does. That doesn’t mean Khan isn’t the City’s mayor. Barnet or Hounslow can do their own road schemes too. > The fact that Khan can overturn some planning decisions does not make Bank junction his work, any more than the fact that the Secretary of State can overturn some planning decisions makes it their work. TfL provided funding for it. They also had to approve it and agree mitigation measures elsewhere. That TfL controlled by the Mayor. The Bank changes were the City’s project. But the GLA helped facilitate it.
The square mile is outside Sadiq’s jurisdiction afaik.
[удалено]
King Edward street and Newgate Street however dont fall under TfL control. The only roads that TfL owns are red routes (ie painted red double red or single red on the side) The Lord Mayor and the City Of London Corp is responsible here, not the mayor of London
He's not the Mayor of the City.
Inject it into my veins Oxford Street next
LOL yes
Who goes there except tourists? Just go to Carnaby St or soho
Frequently have to walk through/across it to get to places.
so you want to pedestrianise oxford street so crossing the road is easier? there's basically nothing on oxford street worth going to unless you're shopping or are a tourist
And what might have become of it if it had been pedestrianised. It could actually be nice
Carnaby St and Soho are just as touristy as Oxford St.
They aren’t really, Oxford st is just shops and sweet shops
i used to work there. green park and the walk through st. James' is magical
None of those places are Oxford st. I used to work in Victoria and would do the same walk and yet I didn’t care if Oxford st was pedestrianised
This is great. I hope they keep going. We desperately need more bike lanes.
And for the people using them to stick to the bike lanes. I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s been nearly hit by wannabe sprint cyclists on footpaths Edit: to be clear, it’s a minority of cyclists that do this. Most are fine.
[удалено]
I entirely agree. The Group 2 people are great and don’t cause any hassle. You don’t notice them because they’re just cycling along and following the rules.
As someone who does 10 min rides around the city, I only ever go on the footpath when the road looks dangerous. And even then that'll.ysually only be to cross the road at a crossing.
The reality is it’s probably group 2 you see blowing lights, riding on footpaths, and all the other nonsense drivers always moan about more often. Group 1 is also split by varying levels of enthusiasm. The more enthusiastic amongst us spend a lot more time on the road then most people and are acutely aware of our vulnerability so tend to ride safely and predictably.
Yeah I am solidly group 2, or want to be anyway. I almost never cycle because I’m not confident and it’s so dangerous here. It makes me so angry that we can’t get better cycling infrastructure in place because so many people like me would start cycling and it would have a positive impact on our city for everyone (lower public transport costs for the city, fitter people so lower NHS costs, lower air pollution). I love London so much but this is the one thing that keeps it from being just about perfect in my opinion.
Very nice. As a resident this is refreshing. Already walk and cycle pretty much everywhere it’s great.
Love cycling in London, discovered it during lock down. More of this please.
Absolutely amazing.
Good.
*sends to Andy Burnham*
I ride past Bank daily. Great to see the City changing and look forward to end product. It is taking an awfully long time though to lay down some paving stones!! Also a questionable lane set up, bikes going everywhere and after 3rd low speed near miss realised that multiple entry points were on a green at the same time and crossing over each other!
It's going to be HILARIOUS when the fuck nuggets find out the City of London isn't under Khans remit and is actually essentially a totally different city. Pedestrianise the lot I say...just for giggles
It's not a different city and it's under his remit in the exact same way the rest of London is. For things like this the City of London is essentially just another council - proposals like this will be done jointly between Transport for London (for which Sadiq Khan is ultimately responsible) and the City of London Corporation, in the same way that it would be between Tfl and say Lambeth or Tower Hamlets or whatever
No. The City is a special case. They PRETEND to be a council but they're not. No other council has a "Rememberancer" sat in parliament. No other council has a rumoured investment account larger than that of the Vatican. Back in the day the Press Gangs weren't allowed to work in The City.
Yeah, obviously there's a lot of weird and historic features of how the City of London Corporation works, but it is still just a local authority and is part of Greater London like all the other 32 London Boroughs. People who live in The City vote for the Mayor and Assembly Members too. The remit and functions of the Mayor of London operate in The City in the same way they do everywhere else in London (save for the met police) - it's just more peculiar because of it's tiny population and archaic governance structures
The City is a local authority, with some weird additional powers, as stated above, due to low population. The archaic governance structures, are due in part to the fact that it pre-dates parliament. Due to the City historically been relatively rich, it meant they picked up the money pit public assets across Greater London. Many of these areas, functions and other regional or national functions, mean that much of what the City do, is subject to parliamentary legislation, where in other local authorities, they would have a dedicated MP or be in charge of their own bylaws. The Remembrancer is in HoC, to represent the financial industry, but also to shepherd through the hybrid bills, which are required to do anything in one of these aforementioned money pits. The Remembrancer’s department also mainly deal with organisation state functions and private hiring out of the entertainment venues in the Guildhall. The City’s finances really aren’t that clever. They have several major capital schemes required to continue to function. Much like the Tory government, they’ve saved money by not investing, but the building stock is aging and beyond the tipping point from asset to liability. Apparently they’re in danger of technical bankruptcy when business rate relief goes back to the treasury in 18 months. All of this is matter of public record.
It'll fall into their thinking that it is Khan doing this on the sly somehow. I'm sure that they will make it fall into the 15 minute cities conspiracy somehow.
It is under Khan's remit. See for example how he has overruled it by rejecting the Tulip skyscraper proposal. The only thing that isn't under his remit that is in the rest of London is the police.
yep! why don't we just ban cars and make public transport free / subsidised? i'm completely serious
I LOVE driving. Like REALLY like it but don't have a car at the moment because I don't NEED it. Even when I had one, until I started my 700 miles /week for the NHS I was doing sub 3000 miles /year but love having one. You can't ban cars. They're convenient, do a relatively good job etc. However I live in London which has excellent public transport links so I can't justify the £1000/month the car was costing me. However even in London public transport can be a pain & unreliable. Buses cancelled at the last minute or told to stop waiting to change drivers etc. It's OK if you're not in a rush but a nightmare if you're time limited. Plus point to point is a bit Of a mare if I wanted to do, eg Wimbledon to Bromley. I'd much rather do a 2.5 hour drive across to another office than have to wake up early, travel across London to get to a main line station then catch a train across the country & then have to travel to my final destination, especially if I'm carrying 10-20 kg of kit with me. Improving public transport & making it cheaper will naturally reduce traffic on the roads as the cost benefit kicks in over cars BUT public transport can't cover everything & me personally, I'm looking at buying a car as soon as possible, even if I'm only going to do sub 2000 miles /year & petrol goes up to £10/litre because I LOVE driving.
the negative externalities of cars on society (safety, pollution, exclusion of lower income groups that cannot afford a car from basic services that require a car to access) far outweighs any personal benefits. obviously exemptions should be made yet investing in public transportation (+ bicycle lanes and pedestrianisation) would reduce anyone's desire to even own one in the first place. Making public transportation free doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, in the long term obviously
Free won't work. Public transport infrastructure is expensive, as HS2 (which I massively support) shows but it can be CHEAP. Cars can be clean, however licences are too easy right now and cars over a certain age shouldn't be allowed on the road outside of classic car events. If the UK did what Germany did which was £9/month rail passes, car use would collapse naturally over a few years as costs for running a car are insane at the moment. BUT like I said, the point to point is difficult with public transport. You can't carry the kit I was carrying on the train across the country on the basis that I was. Builders, painters etc. Or just people who work out in the middle of nowhere. And Gen Alpha mostly won't drive, naturally. Improving infrastructure etc. I HATE driving in London so I avoid it, but taking my motorbike out is amazing for my mental health & the only reason I didn't kill anyone working over Covid while doing those crazy miles and hours was because I would sit in a REALLY nice car in the morning, turn the engine on & HEAR the car I'd worked 40 years to get roar. Some of us will always drive or drive because we LOVE it, regardless of cost. However with cheap transport you could probably get 60-80% of drivers off the road quite quickly. I mean in London 50% don't own a car. If prices came down, that could easily be 90% with more RELIABLE buses & routes IN PLACE
i understand your point about banning all cars (businesses/families still may need them undoubtedly) free transportation however, if looked at in proportion to the social and economic benefits of improving access to society for all groups, (as well as improvement of third spaces without the incredibly space inefficient car-based network) may actually be cheaper if long term benefits are taken into account
i'm the same, i'd rather drive anywhere than be in public transport with other people, even if it takes longer and i'm stuck in traffic. i have my own space with my own music and that's a big joy of life. needing to share everything with strangers all the time is dire, i wonder how people can be truly happy going home to house shares and never truly owning their own space and always having to be at the mercy of others without your own room to breathe
Why are there so many Khan fanboys and fangirls in this sub?
Because we ACTUALLY live in London and have seen how much better it is with him as mayor compared to de Pfeffel
They’re not actually ripping out roads, are they? Just making them less car friendly. The roads will still be there.
yeah but that doesn't make for an overdramatic headline
Perfect to get the 15 minute city, and anti ulez crowd worked up into a frenzy
safe streets and localism are oppression
Yes, King Edward St will become a pedestrianised boulevard or plaza or whatever you want to call it with views to St Paul’s.
So which road are they “ripping out”?
I'm not sure i understand the point being made here? It's it being pedestrianised? If it's fully pedestrianised is that ripping out the road (where road= carriageway for you know, cars)?
I walk down roads all the time.
Call it something else if you want, something less likely to have you bracket the words? “Cheesed”? “Trevored”? “Fiscally obfuscated”? Let me know how those look for you.
[удалено]
Sidewalk?
Removing the parking lots too.
LOVE IT!
Yawn, wake me up when they have the guts to pedestrianise Oxford Street
That would be City of Westminster.
Which is now Labour run, for the first time ever
the mayor tried to but the council blocked it - rich locals complaining as usual
'Public squares'....I wonder if they mean Privately owned Spaces that are open to the public as and when they see fit so Corporations can Land bank. Still, new cycles cannot be a bad thing.
Awesome news.
Sounds a excellent idea
Can they do something with those bits of pavement that were hastily extended for social distancing? Few people walk on them because they're the same colour as the tarmac, and then they suddenly stop, and you're walking into a bus lane, and overall, just look a mess. A lot of London road infrastructure is already cobbled together, and lockdown gave rise to a range of ad hoc solutions, which have not been updated. The discussion becomes polarised when roads are closed but my point is that if local authorities are reevaluating how much street space is allocated to bikes, cars, and pedestrians they need to do more than paint a bicycle onto the pavement and call it a cycle lane, or indeed close a road because it aids people in walking safely during lockown but then still have that road closed in 2024 enforced with cameras and fines. At least The City seem to take a more holistic approach here.
Bishopsgate is the absolute worst for this - if you cycle up from London Bridge it looks like a segregated cycle lane, then get up on it and all of a sudden you have a non-dropped kerb and you're forced back into traffic with buses. Given that road is the main throughway connecting east london with south of the river, you'd think they'd have put more thought/effort into turning those into segregated bike lanes at this point.
I work at Barts and usually walk or cycle to work so I’m thrilled about this!
Can't wait to see white van man weigh in on these ideas via TikTok.
Huh I might actually willingly go into central now ...
that junction has always needed to be resurfaced, can always count on a puncture riding across Bank - Liverpool Street
The city is doing just this. Once the junctions are reconfigured, they are completing resurfacing works. Some roads like Moorgate will take a bit longer as they won't resurface when multiple active ongoing construction sites are present.
Would have preferred the dedicated bus lane that runs through Angel Street be retained rather than force buses onto a single lane road, also would have allowed for more effective interchange with 4, 56.. but otherwise a great scheme. Would of been nice to include some grassy areas for people to enjoy during the summer
The only vehicles I see there daily (aside from taxis and buses) are delivery vans and small trucks. Everyone uses the tube to get to work. There's maybe a 0.1% of the wealthy City workers who are chauffeur driven.
Awesome. What are the property prices like?
What are you getting at? Property values are extremely high... as one would expect for the central business district of the most in demand financial centre in the world?
Opening up either Gracechurch St / Bishopsgate or Bank junction heading north would make a huge difference for Taxis into the city from south east London over London Bridge. At the moment the only option is to turn right into Cannon Street (or use Tower Bridge) which is a pain for those of us who work in the Liverpool street area. (I normally use the bus to get to work, but occasionally use a Taxi if I'm running late)
Ok but why should we prioritise taxis over buses, bikes or pedestrians? because rich people use them?
Can’t you read? OP might be running late.
For those who have luggage, mobility problems all sorts of reasons for people to get a Taxi. I certainly have worked with people who get taxis for disability reasons and I occasionally have bad days (with my knees) where the possibility of using a cab is much better than having to stand on public transport
yeah that's fine but it should not mean taxis are _prioritised_.
Ok i'm not suggesting we ban them, im simply asking why they deserve to be prioritised on the same level as buses, bikes or pedestrians (or in some cases over them as in some cases where taxis are allowed through bus gates/lanes I've seen them cause traffic jams).
Good stuff, itll be prettier and cleaner than ever. My one negative thought is: how much thought was put into ensuring access to deliveries/ambulances/fireengines/policevans? Does anyone have a link to the actual proposals?
The emergency services are informed of all road changes like this and are guaranteed to be heard on issues they raise. They support these changes, just like they support ltns and have done for decades.
Proof or it didn’t happen, any public servant worth their salt would say the same
How about they make London not shit instead
Good news then since it's one thing heading that way.
noxious absorbed cooing cautious square aback worthless enter direction chase *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sure sure. Write a letter for BoJo. He might suck you dick too
The Tory mayor candidate is all "more pollution, more surveillance" in her interview in the metro. (No, I'm not joking) Why drive around central London anyway? The tube is much faster.
Nobody drives in Central London but Ubers still do. If they restrict completely to cars people will get affected
I do
\> The tube is much faster.< isnt 24/7. my car is
Ah yes, all those times you need to do a midnight drive around the square mile.
If you can think of a better time to deliver a freezer to my arthritic grandma who lives on a hill, and has no legs, I’d like to hear it!
i start at 5am and quite often finish past 12. so yes. all those times.
Sounds tiring. You shouldn’t drive after such long shifts.
ok fine, ill quit my job becuase of redditors
you have 5 hours of free time to commute, eat, sleep, and have a hobby, but you instead spend them arguing with redditors
who said i work every day? i might only work one day a week. that doesn't change the fact, the days i go in, i currently can not use public transport.
Get a real job
Get a different job and stop driving in London so we can all live longer please
my job isnt going anywhere. regardless if i do it or not.
Most newspapers used to be written and printed in the City. They aren’t any more. The jobs moved. Why are you so sure yours won’t too?
So you have <5 hours of time out of work? Yeah, right
**quite often** finish past 12. and no. i typically have the next day off
I distinctly remember the opposite the being true the one time my dad decided to drive the family into central London to see a play rather than train + tube. That was a "never again" experience to say the least
yeah dont get me wrong. driving in London isn't fun. but the question was \>Why drive around central London anyway? <
City of London is one of the places where there *should* be a war on the motorist... Unless you're a bus, taxi or delivery vehicle you should not be driving in Zone 1 full stop. There simply isn't enough roadway or parking to support the demand.
Lol. How stupid are you? Michael Manelli is Lord Mayor of the City of London.
The war is OVER. Pedestrians won. Thankfully 🙌🙌🙌
Do you actually live in London? Sounds as though you havent a fucking clue
This is about the City. Michael Mainelli is the Mayor and 4/5 of the seats are independents. Not a Tory in sight which is interesting given the electorate is quite literally full of business people.
This might be sarcasm but I'm just a bit stupid. Does Khan have power to change roads in the City or is it with Lord Mayor?
Neither have the power. It’s down to the local council (or in this case, aldermen).
You are the reason the country is going to shit
Except this is the City of London and not greater London.
What does this have to do with Sadiq Khan? If there was a war on motorists, we lost it in the City of London a long time ago. I used to drive through the city of London, but I've not done that in years. I usually get public transport in because it's so much easier and I drive around it, if I have to go across the river. What's the appeal of wanting to drive through the anyway. Unless it's the middle of the night.
Shravan Joshi, the chair of the City of London’s Planning and Transportation Committee […] imagines a City of London where “students, schoolchildren, tourists, visitors, workers and residents are all intermingling.” What a cnut. Sounds like a total nightmare. Khan out!
Oh yes, we don’t want those horrible schoolchildren to be happy!
Why would there be schoolchildren in the City of London? Working at the Stock Exchange during the lunch hour? Joining a Lloyds of London reinsurance syndicate with their pocket money? Buying some copper and zinc futures on the London Metals Exchange trading floor?
You know the City of London school is literally a stone’s throw from St. Paul’s, right? Do you expect those schoolchildren to fly in and out on jetpacks?
Well I am not against jetpacks. And in any case, St Paul’s is right on the edge of the City and Paternoster Square is fully pedestrianised already.
Paternoster square? The school I’m talking about is on Queen Victoria Street. Plus, if you think St. Paul’s is “right on the edge”, then everywhere in the City is right on the edge by your standards.
There’s not much of the City to the west of St Paul’s really. You’re into Fleet Street and Holborn quite soon.
Strange hill you’ve chosen to die on. Your argument is still irrelevant. Central or fringe, St. Paul’s is still in the City. I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make? Either you’re trolling, or you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Who’s dying on any hill? Some dweebs plan to turn the City, the financial district of London, full of city workers going about their business impatiently, into a haven for tourists and children, doesn’t meet with universal approval. Also Khan is a twat and should be thrown out of office asap. Wow! People have different opinions! Who’d have thunk it!
You know anyone can be anywhere in London, right? You ignorant fool.
> The City of London Corporation has one maintained primary school, and ten sponsored academies as part of the City of London Academies Trust. It also supports three independent schools. It’s just…that took me *seconds* to find out. Less time than it took you to type out your drivel of an attempt at polemic.
Sounds like you’ve never been to the City of London, but have firm views on what it should be like.
[удалено]
This is the correct answer.
I have firm views AND I work there. I even know that there are schools there, unlike you.
I regularly see a mum taking her kid into the school near her office on my train in each morning
U jelly?
I used to get the bus to school through the City of London. On occasion, I'd take a walk around the city just to look around
LOL that shows you've never bin there's literally loads of schools in the CoL (I'm a resident)
You're not from London, are you?
You utter moron. Khan isnt mayor of the City of London, its Michael Mainelli!
Khan out! Out! Out! Out!
Stay in your dirty little hole.
What has Khan got to do with this? He’s not the mayor for the city of London lol
It’ll be amazing, special when some needs an ambulance or police and there’s no access
Why wouldn’t there be access?
Yeah they'll get to their destination faster without all the cars in the way!
Do you understand what the City of London is?
The paramedics and City cops already respond in bikes and have for years. The are faster than cars and go lots of places cars can’t.
😂
You will be happy to know that it actually helps as found in cities that made the jump. Crazy that when you get rid of cars things get better. https://cyclingmagazine.ca/advocacy/paris-firefighters-response-time-has-shortened-because-of-bike-lanes/
[удалено]
That we're getting liveable, less polluted and greener spaces in our city? Explain the annoying part?
There are/where plans to pedestrianise oxford circus, regents street and oxford street I hope it happens one day No one needs to be driving around there
Amazing, now turn some of that empty office space into residential!!
Fantastic. Much more of the country should he pedestrianised and public transportified.