Oxford Street pedestrianization is coming to London

Oxford Circus pedestrian crossing, Oxford Street and Regent Street, Westminster, London.  The street is also famous for its all-angle crosswalk.

I started this entry in 2018, when after Sadiq Khan became mayor of London in 2016, it was announced that Oxford Street, one of the main shopping streets in London, was finally going to move to pedestrianization ("London’s Oxford Street to be pedestrianised by the end of 2018 under plans by Mayor Sadiq Khan," CITYam). 

More recently, this has been an issue because of how new Crossrail stations there will further add to the number of people in the area on foot.

Oxford Street attracts more than 500,000 visitors each day. Taxis make up around 1/3 of the traffic on the street, but only accounting for 2% of the people throughput (10,000 people).  Most people walk or use the subway.  

Making this a reality took a change in national law.  London (like Montreal) is a city of boroughs.  While the Mayor of the city overall, particularly in London, has a limited set of duties, but a major one, public transit, this authority doesn't extend to most roadways.  At that scale the borough calls the shots, and Westminster Borough said no (" This article is more than 9 months old Banning cars in city centres has worked around the world. Why isn’t London’s Oxford Street pedestrianised yet?," Guardian).

But it required action by the national government to do so.  From "Oxford Street transformation – the state of play as 2026 gets underway":

On 17 September 2024, he revealed that the then brand new Labour government was backing his desire to bring “the nation’s high street” under his command.

This would not only entail putting Transport for London in charge of the highway itself, but also setting up a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) to annexe some of the area around it too. Control of that area would therefore be removed from Westminster City Council which, in May 2022, had become Labour-run for the first time in its history.

Business opposition at the outset reversed.  Initially businesses were against ("Oxford Street businesses are up in arms over the road’s planned pedestrianisation," CITYam).  But now, with the reduction in footfall from WFH post-covid and a decline in London nightlife, retailers are on board ("London mayor gives green light for pedestrianised Oxford Street," "Khan: Crossrail’s Bond Street station can revitalise “tired” parts of Oxford Street," CITYam, "In Detail: What is the future for London's Oxford Street?," The Industry Fashion).

Green light.  But today, the project is finally going forward ("Oxford Street pedestrianisation plans approved," BBC). 

World class cities give, not just take:  London "gives permission" to pedestrianize major streets.  I have a line that world class cities through their adoption of innovation, show how other places can act similarly.

The congestion charge in London is one, even though it wasn't the first.  It took a long time, but NYC was finally able to launch a similar program, to great success ("New York's Congestion Pricing Is Working. Five Charts Show How," Bloomberg).  

Large scale bike share by Paris is another.  Again, they weren't the first, but they were the first in terms of large scale deployment therefore generating large scale rather than low scale impact ("Vélib' - A Success Story on Bike-Sharing in Paris," Citibike). 

While cities like Washington later moved similarly, NYC's adoption of bike share at a wider scale is again an example for North American cities, along with Montreal, the first city adopting the Paris model on the continent ("S.F. moving to catch up with European bike-share programs," San Francisco Chronicle).

Paris is also a leader in pedestrianizing streets, more so than London, although London has a number of projects that pedestrianize streets in neighborhoods ("Low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce pollution in surrounding streets," Imperial College, "London could get 30 more Low Traffic Neighbourhoods," TimeOut) and by schools (School Streets Initiative).  

The low traffic neighborhood initiative has had push back by the motor lobby, and the then Conservative Government thought it would be a winning campaign issue in the last election ("Residents hate them … so why do officials keep making more LTNs?," "Low-traffic neighbourhoods ‘have little local support’," London Times).   It wasn't ("Labour is right about LTNs – the Tories need to learn the same lesson." Guardian). 

Low traffic neighborhood in Hackney.

What differentiates Paris is moving towards doing this at a subdistrict scale where instead of one street, multiple streets are changed simultaneously.

Conclusion.  In short, cities need to double down on those elements that differentiate cities from suburbs, and attract new residents and commerce.  As I wrote wrt pedestrianization, start with one block and build from there ("A point about pedestrianizing streets: Boulder; Alexandria, Virginia, Cleveland Park, DC").

The most momentous transportation story of 2025 has already occurred: imposition of NYC's congestion zone

We know about congestion zones from cities like London and Stockholm, where motor vehicle operators pay a toll charge for entering the city core.  London has an additional ultra low emissions zone too.

A few years ago, NYC had considered creating one, but the state stopped them.  They've been studying the issue for some time, a date was set ("A $15 toll to drive into part of New York has been approved, a first for a U.S. city," AP) and the Governor of New York stopped this iteration as well ("L.A. hoped to learn from NYC’s congestion pricing rollout. Now what?," Los Angeles Times) for fear it could swing votes to Republicans, only to go on to agree after the election.  From Bloomberg article "NYC Congestion Pricing Takes Effect After Years of Delays":

Then, a tolling structure had to be created. Rates needed to be high enough to discourage driving and shift motorists to public transit, but not so burdensome that they crippled local businesses and the broader economy. About three weeks before the plan was supposed to start last June, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said an initial $15 charge was too large and paused its launch.

Congestion pricing scanners above First Avenue at East 60th Street in Midtown Manhattan on Sunday morning. Drivers will be tolled via E-ZPass or license plate readers. Credit: Karsten Moran for The New York Times

The fees, which will support the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYC Subway and buses, LIRR and Metro-North trains), went into effect yesterday, January 6th ("What New York’s congestion charge could teach the rest of America," Economist).

The scheme is modelled partly on that of London, where since 2003 a daily charge (currently £15, or $19) has reduced the number of cars, improved air quality and funded transit upgrades. New York’s version costs $9 for most drivers (with different rates for lorries and low-income New Yorkers). The zone includes Manhattan’s central business district, south of 61st Street, and most of the roads, tunnels and bridges that connect surrounding areas (see map). The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which oversees the city’s transport system and some suburban lines, hopes that the scheme will reduce traffic in these areas by 10-20% (traffic in central London fell by 18% in the first year). Revenues from the congestion charge are earmarked for much-needed improvements to New York’s ageing subway and other public-transport systems.

Also see:

-- "New York first US city to have congestion charge," BBC
-- "New York City Welcomes Congestion Pricing With Fanfare and Complaints," New York Times
-- "Here’s why no one escapes NYC’s controversial congestion toll — not even locals without cars," New York Post
-- "First in nation zone toll designed to raise $1 billion per year in NYC," Clark County Today
-- "NYC congestion pricing program has launched, tolling drivers entering 60th Street and below in Manhattan," Newsday
-- "The Funniest and Most Notable Reactions to Congestion Pricing," New York Magazine

I'm surprised there is an overnight toll, since traffic then is significantly reduced.

Congestion pricing sign along the westbound Long Island Expressway approaching Van Dam Street in Queens on Sunday. Credit: Newsday/James Carbone

Effect on central business district, will businesses relocate to areas outside of the congestion zone? While I agree theoretically in this form of transportation demand management, and not only does it reduce congestion but has positive effects on the environment, I do worry that post-covid, where the office market has been so diminished, that a congestion toll could accentuate negative effects on the city's central business district.

When your CBD doesn't have much competition a congestion zone toll is less of a worry vis a vis competition for commercial activity.

New York Post graphic.

State of New Jersey against.  NJ fought the toll because they argued it would disproportionately affect their citizens ("Greenlight for congestion pricing as judge rules against New Jersey," Newsday).  Surburbanites don't like it either.  From the Toronto Star article:

Siemiatycki also acknowledged that road pricing is an unpopular idea in suburban areas while taking off road tolls, expanding highway networks and cutting bike lanes have “an effective political wedge.” “We do have to acknowledge that the approach that they’re following is popular. The problem is it hasn’t been effective. I mean congestion has gotten worse during their six years in office,” Siemiatycki said. “It might be good policy, but it’s not good politics,” he said.

Could a NYC congestion toll also support transit network improvements between NJ and NYC, not just NYC?  OTOH, I wish that the congestion toll would also be used to improve NJ-related transit such as: (1) extension of at least one NYC subway line into NJ; (2) building a subway on Bergenline Avenue; (3) creation of fixed rail transit from NJ to Staten Island; (4) working to merge NJ Transit trains with Metro North and LIRR trains to have through running trains, improving the system overall; (5) investments in PATH; etc.

A congestion zone for DC?  People suggest a congestion zone for DC and it has been mentioned in documents by the City's' DOT.  But especially since covid, and transit usage is less than half of what it was before, that there are too many other competitive districts: Alexandria, Arlington, Bethesda, Tysons, the I-70 corridor; etc., for the city to go it alone.  Especially since the Republican federal government will aim to further reduce the number of agencies and workers in DC.

Maybe if the fee also supported other transportational improvements, not just serving DC, it could work.  E.g., merging VRE and MARC, having MARC service in Montgomery County be bi-directional, etc.

World class cities as examples for others: will NYC's congestion charge lead to such an adoption elsewhere.  I suppose there are many such articles, but I found three, about the possibility of their cities imposing congestion fees, emboldened by the action in NYC.

-- "Jammed and polluted Mumbai needs congestion fee, a la NYC: Experts," Times of India
-- "New York City has imposed a congestion charge on drivers entering Manhattan. Should Toronto follow suit?," Toronto Star

I have a line that "world class cities don't just take, they give," in that when they adopt best practice it empowers other places to do something similar.  This goes with London with the congestion charge, even though it was preceded by Stockholm in Europe and Singapore.  Similarly, Paris wasn't the first city to adopt bicycle sharing, but it was the first study to introduce it on a huge scale, which empowered other cities to adopt bicycle sharing as well.