Return to Agenda

Division(s): Oxford Central, Oxford West

ITEM TIC8

TRANSPORT IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE – 4 MARCH 2004

OXFORD - BEAUMONT STREET/GLOUCESTER STREET/ST JOHN STREET – TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Report by Head of Transport

 

Introduction

  1. This report details the responses to public consultation carried out in December 2003/January 2004 on the proposal to install traffic signals at the Beaumont Street/Gloucester Street/St John Street junction in Oxford. The proposal is shown at Annex 1 (download as .doc file).

    2. Background

  2. Gloucester Street and St John Street form part of the National Cycle Network Route No 5 established by SUSTRANS in 2000. Route No 5 links London via Oxford and Banbury to Stratford-on-Avon and Birmingham. Several upgrades of Route No 5 have been undertaken in Oxford, including for example the provision of the Woodstock Road cycle track from Bainton Road northwards.

  3. There have been various considerations given to improving the Beaumont Street/Gloucester Street junction for cyclists, the foremost being the provision of a Toucan crossing across Beaumont Street. This had the disadvantage of only facilitating cycle movements in any one direction, ie if installed east of Gloucester Street/St Johns Street, northbound cyclists on Gloucester Street would have to '’dog leg'’ across Gloucester Street to access the crossing then ‘dog leg’ back across St John Street to continue on the west side of St John Street.

  4. In order to overcome any ‘dog legging’ the current traffic signal layout was developed. This has the advantage of regulating all movements by vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians with a separate pedestrian/cyclists phase included in the signal control. It can also be linked to the traffic signals at Worcester Street and St Giles to minimise traffic delay across the Beaumont Street corridor.

  5. A recent traffic survey (January 2004) showed that there were 282 cyclists travelling north across Beaumont Street and 187 travelling south. Accident figures show that three slight injury accidents occurred in a 5-year period from 1999 to 2003. Two accidents involved cars turning from Beaumont Street into Gloucester Street and St John Street respectively and colliding with a motor bike or moped. The third accident involved a car turning right from Gloucester Street colliding with a pedestrian who had just stepped off the north pavement of Beaumont Street.

    6. Consultation

  6. Letters were sent out to residents in the locality of the Beaumont Street junction on 22 December 2003 with a request for replies by 16 January 2004. Letters were also sent to County and City Councillors and the emergency services.

  7. 25 responses have been received and all had objections to or concerns about the proposdals, with only 3 indicating some level of support. Annex 2 (download as .rtf file) and Annex 3 (download as .doc file) (set out the comments received.

    8. Officer’s Comments

  8. The limited support consists principally in recognising that an improved pedestrian facility would be provided and that a degree of access/egress for vehicles between Gloucester Street and Beaumont Street would ensue. Interestingly there was little support for the scheme in its ability to provide improved cyclist movements. It appears that cyclists accept that there are sufficient gaps occurring between vehicles on Beaumont Street (because of the signals at both ends of the street) for them to cross the street without undue delay, or apparently, danger.

  9. On the other hand there are a wide range of objections and concerns to the scheme. These generally fall into 5 categories:-

    1. they question the need and justification for the scheme which is considered ‘over-engineered and over-designed’ and that the money could be better spent elsewhere;
    2. the signals would cause greater congestion with increased noise and pollution from more vehicles stopping and starting;

    3. the serious environmental effect of the signals on the streetscape;

    4. direct and indirect effects arising from the engineering layout, such as the narrower roads causing a hazard to cyclists and increasing the problems of vehicles turning into Gloucester Street; and

    5. alternative solutions put forward – pedestrian crossing, zebra crossing, mini-roundabout and wider central refuges.

  1. The detailed comments summarised at Annex 3 (download as .doc file) show that careful consideration has been given by the consultees to the impact of traffic signals at this junction. Whilst I consider that we could mitigate the engineering effects as (v) above, I do have concerns about being able to minimise the environmental effects. The accident figures alone do not justify provision of a signalised junction at this location. I therefore consider that the strength of opposition to the traffic signal scheme renders the proposal unworthy of pursuing.

  2. However, the result of the traffic count does indicate that there is a significant north/south cyclist movement which, coupled with the pedestrian movements, would justify some other form of improvement. An alternative proposal, which has less impact on the conservation area, would be to widen the existing central refuges (one idea also suggested in (v) above). Beaumont Street is 13.5 metres wide and widening the refuges to 2 metres in width would create a greater area for pedestrians to wait for a suitable gap in the traffic and at the same time help to protect cyclists who are similarly waiting half-way across the street. All materials used on the refuges would be carefully chosen to reflect the conservation area location. This option is shown at Annex 4 (download as .doc file).

    3. Financial and Staff Implications

  3. The proposals described in the report could be implemented at a cost of £13,000 and funded from the 2004/05 Capital Programme subject to availability of funds. The staffing implications can be met from existing resources.

    4. RECOMMENDATIONS

  4. The Committee is RECOMMENDED:

    1. not to proceed with the proposal for the installation of traffic signals at the Beaumont Street/Gloucester Street/St John Street junction; and

    2. to agree the installation of wider central refuges as shown on the plan at Annex 4 to this report, subject to allocation of funds from 2004/05 Capital Programme.

DAVID McKIBBIN
HEAD OF TRANSPORT

Background papers: Copies of all responses are available in the Members’ Resource Centre

Contact Officer: Peter Evans, Transport Projects Implementation Tel: Oxford 815836

26 February 2004

Return to TOP