Return to Agenda

ITEM EX10

EXECUTIVE – 5 MARCH 2002

HEADINGTON AND MARSTON AREA TRANSPORT STRATEGY (HAMATS)

Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

  1. In Spring 2000 the County and City Councils jointly commissioned a transport study of the Headington and Marston area by Colin Buchanan and Partners with the aims of:

    • identifying the key transport problems in the area;

    • understanding future transport demands related to planned development, particularly of the hospital and university sites;

    • proposing measures to meet existing and future travel demand to and within the area;

    • developing a strategy compatible with OTS.

  1. During the same period as the wider transport study, the County Council carried out an assessment of the B4495 orbital corridor which passes through the Headington and Marston area. A number of proposals have been identified to address issues consequential to the OTS central area changes and where appropriate these should now be taken into the strategy for Headington and Marston.

  2. Public consultation on the consultants’ proposals put forward in the study took place in Summer 2001. The report on the consultation has now been received and, along with the consultants’ "Recommended Strategy", has been circulated to the Members’ Advisory Group and also placed in the Members’ Resource Centre.

  3. This report comments on the consultants’ proposals and a draft strategy for consultation with key stakeholders, City and Parish Councils and local Members. This is set out in Annex 1.
    Annex 2 discusses the main areas of the strategy in the light of the consultation responses to datel.

    4. The Consultants’ Proposals

  4. The proposals that were presented for public comment were summarised on the consultation leaflet which was circulated widely in the study area and described in the "Recommended Strategy" report. The consultants’ vision for the area is an improved quality of environment for residents and visitors. They believe that by providing good alternatives to travelling by car and controlling parking, growth in travel demand associated with new developments or with increased activity at existing sites, can be accommodated without a significant increase in car traffic. They conclude that it is not realistic to seek to accommodate increased travel demand by building more or widening existing roads; neither is this approach consistent with local or national transport policy. Their recommended strategy therefore consists of a package of measures aimed at making the alternatives to car use more attractive, together with measures to discourage car use, particularly for commuting. The key elements of their strategy can be summarised as:

    • frequent and reliable public transport links providing a high degree of accessibility to key destinations within the area;

    • changes to the road network to provide in particular, for improved bus priority;

    • a comprehensive network of safe and convenient cycle routes linking to the wider network across the City;

    • high quality pedestrian routes and facilities providing for safe and secure travel on foot throughout the area;

    • the management of parking, both on and off street, to reduce in particular, the comparative attractiveness of car commuting over other forms of travel.

Public Consultation

  1. Whilst the public exhibition of the consultants’ proposals was reasonably well attended the level of response both through the questionnaires circulated widely across the study area and beyond, and by letter direct to the Council or the consultants, was disappointing. Only 314 questionnaires were returned and 24 letters received following the distribution of around 20,000 leaflets to households and organisations.

  2. Nevertheless, analysis of these responses by the consultants shows general, although not overwhelming, support for the recommended strategy. In a number of cases where there was opposition to the strategy it seems that this may have been influenced by concerns about a particular measure, eg, Osler Road and Brookfield Crescent bus links, rather than a wholesale rejection of the principles being put forward. The most fundamental criticism arose from views that the strategy would not deliver the desired outcomes of resolving existing problems or accommodating the extra travel demands of planned developments.

  3. It was very difficult, throughout the consultation process, to counter the impression that the strategy was all about dealing with the current proposal to expand the John Radcliffe (JR) Hospital to accommodate the Radcliffe Infirmary functions. Consequently, provision of a direct road link from the A40 to the JR Hospital was suggested in several responses, including the Headington Residents Association, Headington Forum, Elsfield and Old Marston Parish Councils and Rescue Oxford. The A40 direct link issue is referred to below. Two of the main hospital trusts (Oxford Radcliffe and Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre) as well as Oxford Brookes University, supported the general approach of the strategy, as did a number of other organisations and individuals. Concern about patient and visitor access to hospital sites was the common theme of the responses from outside Oxford.

  4. A number of detailed suggestions were made through the public consultation, especially for new or improved pedestrian and cycle facilities. These have, where possible, been included in the plans accompanying the strategy recommendations.

  5. Another issue raised during consultation was the link to and relationship with adjacent areas, outside the immediate study area. In particular, concerns were expressed about the East Oxford area, notably traffic in Divinity and Southfield Roads. Officers have been in discussion with representatives from the East Oxford area and recognise the complexity of issues involved. One specific outcome is an agreement to work with the community representatives to devise and commission further assessment of options to manage traffic in the area. This is referred to in Annex 2.

    6. A40 Road Link to the JR Hospital

  6. A direct road link for all traffic from the A40 Northern Bypass with the JR hospital was perceived by some at the public consultation as the answer to Headington and Marston’s traffic problems. However, whilst it would divert some JR traffic from some local roads, such a link would not serve other parts of the HAMATS area, including the key destinations of Oxford Brookes University, the Churchill Hospital or Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre; would be hugely costly in financial as well as environmental terms and is not supported by the primary "beneficiary", the Oxford Radcliffe Hospital Trust. This latter point, as well as the fact that major road schemes largely to accommodate car traffic do not enjoy the support of national or local transport and land use planning policy, means that generating funding for such a scheme would be difficult, if not impossible. The need to secure the assent of the Oxford Radcliffe Hospital Trust, which would not be forthcoming, means that this scheme could not be delivered.

  7. Whilst no detailed costing or environmental assessment of an A40 link road option has been carried out, it cannot be considered to be a realistic alternative to a comprehensive and integrated transport strategy for the area. The policy implications of pursuing an A40 link as the solution to the HAMATS area transport problems would be to abandon most of the principles of sustainable transport followed with considerable success in Oxford for many years. Opening up car access into the JR Hospital would seriously undermine the viability of bus services to the site. It would also generate additional car traffic focused on the A40 access point which inevitably would impact on routes beyond the ring road, such as through the rural roads to the north and east of the City. Finally, a direct link to the JR hospital would undoubtedly lead to pressure for more on-site parking to make the scheme worthwhile. This itself would be costly and would potentially divert funds away from a more comprehensive set of measures serving a wider public.

    8. Recommended Strategy

  8. As far as the overall strategy is concerned, it is important to ensure that it is compatible with the transport provisions and policies of adjoining areas and consistent with the Local Transport Plan. This requires a focus to be placed on encouraging greater use of buses, particularly within the built up area. In this respect, it is important to consider transport in Headington and Marston in the context of both the Park and Ride system and the Premium Routes network, both aimed at encouraging greater levels of bus use.

  9. What is as important, as the consultants stress, is that achieving the strategy objectives depends on integrated implementation of the whole package of measures, especially the bus infrastructure and service improvements and car parking controls. Whilst these will inevitably disadvantage some people, the disadvantages need to be set against the wider benefits and the limited choice of options available. Certainly adopting a strategy aimed at accommodating unfettered car use would cause immensely greater local impacts and disadvantages for many people.

  10. The recommended HAMATS strategy is set out in Annex 1. This brings together the consultants’ recommendations, along with outputs from the study of the B4495 corridor, proposals previously included in the Oxford Local Plan and some other issues that have arisen during subsequent consultation meetings with key interests, notably the bus operators.

  11. It is proposed that at this stage the strategy be considered draft for the purpose of carrying out some further consultation with key stakeholders such as the NHS Trusts and Oxford Brookes University, as well as the City Council, Old Marston Parish Council and local Members. Following this, a final recommended strategy can be brought back to the Executive for adoption. In the interim period the draft strategy can be used as a basis for the County Council to respond to consultations on planning applications and to develop measures for inclusion in the OTS programme.

    12. Environmental Implications

  12. One of the key aims of the HAMATS is to develop a strategy compatible with the OTS whose objective is to reduce the worst environmental effects of traffic. The recommended strategy includes provision for more public transport use which is designed to achieve such benefits and also makes opportunities for physical environmental enhancements in parts of the area heavily used by pedestrians.

    13. Financial and Staff Implications

  13. The implementation of transport measures in accordance with the integrated transport strategy will require substantial investment. The main sources will be developer contributions, some of which are not expected for several years, and the County Council’s transport capital programme. Staff resources will be drawn from the existing establishment. Costs will be incurred in employing consultants for further transport planning work, such as in East Oxford, and for the engineering design of individual components of the strategy as they come forward. The latter can be funded from the Council’s capital allocations.

    14. Implications for People Living in Poverty

  14. The Headington and Marston Area Transport Strategy seeks to improve opportunities and conditions for those without access to private transport.

    15.   RECOMMENDATIONS

  15. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

          1. approve the draft Headington and Marston Area Transport Strategy set out in Annex 1, for consultation with key stakeholders, the City and Parish Councils and local members;

          2. request officers to report back to the Executive following this further consultation, with a recommended final strategy for adoption;

          3. agree that in the interim officers should use the draft HAMATS strategy as a basis for responses to consultations on planning applications in the area and to develop measures for inclusion in the OTS programme.

DAVID YOUNG
Director of Environmental Services

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Peter Mann Tel Oxford 815479

January 2002

Return to TOP