10.00 am
A question & answer session has been arranged in relation to park & ride.
Minutes:
The Committee undertook a question and answer session attended by Councillors Ian Hudspeth and Rodney Rose, Steve Howell, Head of Transport and Paul Fermer. The following are amongst the main recommendations and points for consideration:
1) Councillor Tanner – Was interested in the County Council approach to cycle parking – he felt would be useful, as would dedicated cycle routes from P&R sites.
Recommendation : that officers look at the access to the P&R site and investigate the possibility for providing secure cycle parking and come back to a future meeting with proposals.
2) Councillor Mathew – Seacourt P&R – Outlined a problem of left turning traffic exiting the site – used as a means of queue jumping.
Councillor N Turner - Supported action being taken to resolve congestion at Peartree P&R.
Recommendation – that officers consider solutions to the problems outlined.
3) It was noted that franchising was being considered and support given to continuing work already begun by the Council to realise potential income streams via franchising of all P&R sites. A Member made a special case for Thornhill P&R separately to the others given its particular use by London commuters.
4) Councillor D Turner – Suggested the possibility of rural buses feeding into P&R sites outside of peak hours. It could have a double benefit of taking buses out of Oxford and providing a better service for rural users. Councillor Purse supported the suggestion in relation to Thornhill P&R and its surrounding villages.
Councillor Hudspeth asked that members feed specific ideas through the bus subsidy process. The Committee noted the suggestion and response.
5) Lewknor– Suggestion made that officers look at possibility of developing this site as a P&R or airport car park but not taken forward following officer response that there was no interest from the bus company in taking it forward commercially and that numbers suggested that demand from London commuters had reached a plateau.
6) There was support for the introduction of airport parking. Officers advised that the current suggestion was Redbridge P&R as there was capacity. Other suggestions were made including a new site to better serve all airport bus links. Committee members accepted the officer response that the cost of a new site would not be viable for what would be a fairly small scale operation. It was noted that discussions were ongoing with bus companies. The Committee noted the possibility of airport parking at Redbridge P&R
7) There were mixed views on charging with concern expressed over the danger of displacement parking in the surrounding area if charges were introduced. There was general support for some mechanism of demand management, particularly in relation to Seacourt P&R.
8) Councillor Purse – Noted that the signs were sometimes showing full when spaces were clearly available.
Recommendation- that efforts be made to ensure that signs were updated regularly.
9) Councillor Purse – Suggestion made that the provision of a telephone even if linked solely to a taxi company would be useful.
Recommendation – That officers consider the suggestion and respond to a future meeting on any action taken.
10) Councillor Stratford – Queried whether there were any plans for a totally new P&R alongside the new developments. Officers responded that they were not currently looking at a new site but were considering options for remote P&R along premium route networks. The Committee noted the officer response.
11) There was some discussion over the pressures around Thornhill P&R, including London commuter traffic and University parking. Councillor Hudspeth recognised the pressures but indicated that the site was difficult being on the edge of green belt. The timetable for the intended planning application with a possible submission next March/April was noted.
RESOLVED: to refer the recommendations and main list of points arising from the question & answer session to the Cabinet Member and relevant officers.