ANNEX 2
Old Headington, Oxford – Proposed Traffic Calming

No.	Respondent	Support Proposals	Comments	Officer Comments	
1.	Resident 
(e-mail)
	Yes	Supports the idea. Concerned that rat-runners will use Hawthorn and Chestnut Avenue to avoid the traffic calming which would be more dangerous because the route is more built up.  There is also a park entrance which is used by children.  Suggests that humps are put in Hawthorne and Chestnut Avenues too. 

Can you put in a 3 inch gap for the cyclists around the humps.	Accept that this may be a possibility but it is considered to be small due to the narrowness of the roads and parked vehicles.  Unfortunately no further monies are presently available to treat additional streets.  If the scheme goes ahead the County Council will monitor the situation and look for further funding if it is deemed necessary.

This is included in the design.	
2.	Resident (letter)	Yes	Very good idea.  Should be extended up Barton Road as pedestrians are not safe due to traffic exceeding the speed limit.	No further monies are presently available to treat additional streets.	
3.

3. (cont)	Resident of Ash Grove 
(letter)	?	Agrees with traffic calming humps and tables but does not agree with the narrowings.  

There are often cars parked in the lay-by by the Black Boy pub and outside the house opposite.  Narrowing here would only increase the amount of waiting traffic which will cause traffic to back up along to Old High Street and St Andrew’s Road.

The narrowing outside No 43 is also dangerous, cars will be able to speed up between the last speed hump and the narrowing meaning that reckless drivers will reach any queuing traffic too rapidly.  
Suggests using more humps or raised tables instead.

St Andrews Road and Old High Street should be designated as residents only parking, as current levels of parking pose a major threat to road safety. 	

The narrowings are an integral part of the scheme as they provide an “entry” to the scheme.  If this narrowing were to be replaced by a hump a narrowing would be required elsewhere.  See paragraph 7 of the main report.

These roads are included in the proposed extension to the Headington Residents Parking Zone.	
4.	Resident of 
Ash Grove (e-mail)	Yes	Supports proposals.  

The bumps may cause motorists to bypass them by driving via surrounding roads increasing the traffic in these areas.  Suggest putting in humps in Ash Grove and Chestnut Avenue also.

Large proportion of traffic through Barton Rd and Barton Lane is heading towards the John Radcliffe hospital car park entrance on Osler Road. Closing the entrance would reduce traffic flow. 

Could Osler Road between St Andrew’s Road and The Croft be included in a residents parking scheme as it is overused by hospital staff.	

Accept that this may be a possibility but it is considered to be small due to the narrowness of the roads and parked vehicles.  Unfortunately no further monies are presently available to treat additional streets.  If the scheme goes ahead the County Council will monitor the situation and look for further funding if it is deemed necessary.

This is a matter for the hospital to consider.

The whole of Osler Road is included in the proposed extension to the Headington Residents Parking Zone.	
5.

5. (cont)
	Resident of Ash Grove (email)	No	Does not agree with narrowing as it could cause a collision.   

Will move the problem to Chestnut Avenue and Ash Grove.  This will be more dangerous as they are more built up.  The entrance to Bury Knowle Park is on Chestnut Avenue where traffic will be at its fastest.

The turn into Chestnut Avenue from Barton Lane is very sharp.  Rat runners will prefer the easier turn into Ash Grove.

Big overall problem with rat running and parking in the area.  It would be more logical to force the hospitals to provide parking on site for all its employees.

Junction of Barton Road and Hawthorn Avenue is cluttered up with parked cars, restricting the line of sight for vehicles emerging into Barton Road.	

Accept that this may be a possibility but it is considered to be small due to the narrowness of the roads and parked vehicles.  Unfortunately no further monies are presently available to treat additional streets.  If the scheme goes ahead the County will monitor the situation and look for further funding if it is deemed necessary.

Proposed residents’ parking zones in the area will remove parking and reduce the level of ‘rat-running’ traffic.	
6.	Resident of Ash Grove (letter) 	Yes	Fully support the scheme, do it asap!		
7.

7 (cont)	Resident of Barton Lane 
(letter)	No	Opposed to the speed hump outside his house.

It may cause structural damage to his property.

Already suffering from a high level of noise and air pollution from the ring road, the proposals will increase this. The effect of vehicles braking, traversing the hump then accelerating again will generate noise especially with larger vehicles.

This scheme is proposed to increase safety, I do not recall any accidents.

The narrowing at No 43 Barton Road is too close to the bend.

Will you be improving the footpath facilities at the same time?  Its present condition makes it impossible for wheelchair users to use the footpath safely.  Will wheelchair users have to negotiate the speed humps on the road too?	

Traffic calming schemes are designed to be used at a constant speed appropriate for the conditions.  If drivers use the road appropriately the effect of the scheme will be minimal.

Barton Lane is part of an identified cycle route linking Marston to Barton.  The proposal has been put forward to make this part of the route more cycle friendly, not to treat an identified accident problem.

The narrowing is a sufficient distance from the bend.  See paragraph 7 of the main report.

Footway improvements are not proposed as part of this scheme.  If wheelchair users currently use the road they will have to negotiate the humps.

	
8.

	Resident of Barton Lane (Letter)
	No	The provision of a new road hump near the house will increase noise from vehicles changing gear and then accelerating away.	This is a possibility if drivers do not drive at a constant speed.	
9.	Resident of Barton Lane (letter)	No	Would like a 20mph speed limit with speed cameras instead of our proposals.	Speed cameras can only be used where there is a clearly identifiable speed related accident problem.	
10.	Resident of Barton Lane (letter)	?	Although I am pleased with the proposal to slow traffic down I consider the road narrowing outside 43 Barton Road to be unnecessary.	The road narrowing is required to provide an ‘entry’ into the scheme.  See paragraph 7 of the main report.	
11.	Residents of Barton Lane (letter)	Yes	Residents are pleased that traffic calming is planned for Barton Lane and support the proposals.  However could the hump proposed outside the property be moved to a position 15m east along Barton Lane,  There are only 2 flats with windows on the roadside and the new hump is  located just outside them. 	The hump will be suitably relocated as the criteria provides for this.
	
12.	Resident of The Sycamores, Barton Road
(letter)	?	Requests that the proposals should be extended to cover more of Barton Road.  People drive down between London Road and No 43 at great speed.  

Suggest that the narrowing at No 43 be changed to a raised table at the junction between Blackthorn Close and Hawthorn Avenue.  This would be more effective.	No further monies are available at present to treat additional streets. 

The narrowing provides an “entry” into the scheme, a raised table would not provide this.  See paragraph 7 of the main report.	
13.

13.
(cont)	Resident of The Sycamores, Barton Road
(letter)	?	Agrees with raised tables and humps.

Narrowing would be unacceptable.  Oncoming car lights can be quite hazardous when driving up into Barton Road from Barton Lane at night, narrowing at this point would be dangerous.

There are problems with parking which also obstructs the road.	

The narrowing is an integral part of the scheme as it provides an ‘entry’ into the scheme.  

Parking issues will be addressed in the proposed residents parking zones.	
14.
	Resident of Barton Road (e-mail)	?	Although we agree that route needs traffic calming, we do not agree fully with the proposals. Why are there no measures in Barton Road?

Do not agree with the narrowing at 43 Barton Road.

Doesn’t agree with the raised tables as they will make a blind and dangerous corner even worse.

Narrowing at the Old High Street end of Barton Lane will not work as it is already narrow which does nothing to slow down traffic already.

Can the area be designated ‘access for residents only’
This has been done in Elms Drive between Cherwell Drive and Marston Road and it seems to work well.	No further monies are available at present to treat additional streets.

See paragraph 7 of the main report.

Barton Lane does narrow significantly just past the Old High Street junction and remains at about this width for the remainder of its length.  The narrowing is however required to provide an “entry” treatment into the hump scheme.
Elms Drive advisory sign has been erected to compliment signs related to an access restriction.  This is not being considered as part of these proposals.	
15.

	Resident of Barton Road. (letter)	No	I do not feel that humps and raised tables will provide any greater measure of safety.

Extremely concerned about the narrowing outside 43 Barton Road.

Hearses and Ambulances are frequent users of the road and need no more obstacles.	

It is being recommended that this narrowing be removed.  See paragraph 7 of the main report.

The Ambulance Service were consulted on the proposals but no comment has been received.	
16.

16.
(cont)	Resident of Barton Road	?	Concerned that access into and out of our drive will become more difficult with the proposed narrowing in its current position.  The speed of traffic coming from the direction of the ring road, despite the bend, is high.

How will a large van or lorry reverse into our drive to deliver goods?  

There are two businesses located at this corner which generate a large amount of traffic.	It is being recommended that this narrowing be removed.  See paragraphs 7 and 8 of the main report.	
17.	Resident of The Beeches (letter)	?	Needs humps in the whole of Barton Road.  	Accept that this may be a possibility but it is considered to be small due to the narrowness of the roads and parked vehicles.  Unfortunately no further monies are presently available to treat additional streets.  If the scheme goes ahead the County will monitor the situation and look for further funding if it is deemed necessary.	
18.

	Resident of The Beeches (letter)	No	Have improvements at Green Road roundabout been taken into account?

I consider that narrowing will result in damage to vehicles as drivers force their way through. People do not expect roads to narrow suddenly.

I do not think that humps are sensible.  It is almost impossible to drive over them evenly. Damaging to vehicles and passengers alike.

Cyclists and pedestrians use the road.  Their movements are not always predictable.

Will you improve street lighting, road sweeping, snow and ice treatment?	It is considered that improvements at Green Road roundabout will have minimal effect on Barton Lane.

The narrowing provides an “entry” into the scheme. Only one car will be able to pass through at a time, this should not incur damage to vehicles.  Signs will be put up to indicate areas of narrowing in advance.

Speed humps are an effective way of reducing traffic speeds.  Their design is such that vehicles passing over them will not get damaged if driven over at an appropriate slower speed.  

These traffic calming measures will help to reduce speeds in Barton Lane which will increase cyclist and pedestrian safety. 

Improvements to street lighting are included in the scheme. 	
19.	Resident of Blackthorn Close,  (letter)	?	Agree with the road humps but not the road narrowings.  I am also against the raised tables as I feel there is nothing to be gained from them.
	The road narrowings are required to provide an “entry” into the scheme.  The raised tables provide a means of slowing traffic at the junctions with Chestnut Avenue and Ash Grove thus providing safer conditions for drivers existing them.	
20.

	Blackthorn Close (letter)	?	My experience is that humps can be a hazard for cyclists unless a gap is left at the side for them.

Cyclists often create a hazard by cycling two abreast.

The narrowings will cause queues which would be more dangerous

Do not see the point of raised tables as humps will slow the traffic.

Wants a pedestrian refuge island in Old High Street.
	The design of the hump provides a gap for cyclists.

The narrowings are required as an “entry” treatment into the scheme.  Raised tables have been used at junctions to improve safety for drivers exiting from the site.

This will be investigated and if appropriate included in the future programme subject to funding being available.	
21.	Resident of Chestnut Avenue (letter)	?	Welcome some of the proposals.  

We feel that narrowing and humps are excessive and that only humps should be used.	

The narrowings are required to provide an “entry” into the scheme.	
22.	Chestnut Avenue
(letter)	?	Agrees that there is too much traffic using this road as a short cut.

Do not agree with the road narrowing as drivers approaching from Old High Street would arrive at the narrowing too suddenly to deal with it safely.	

The narrowing is required as an ‘entry’ to the scheme.  Signing of the narrowing will ensure that drivers ae aware of it in good time.
	
23.

23.
(cont)	Chestnut Avenue.
(letter)	?	Agrees that traffic does need to be slowed down.  

Feels that the raised tables, humps and narrowing are too much.  There is a hump proposed directly outside Emden House retirement home, the sound of passing vehicles will cause distress to the residents. Suggests narrowing at this point and not a hump.

Headington is overdue for yellow lines to be installed at certain junctions, ie Old High Street, Barton Lane, Larkins Lane and St Andrews Road Junctions.	

The narrowings are required as an “entry” treatment into the scheme.  Raised tables have been used at junctions to improve safety for drivers existing from the side roads.  The hump outside Emden House is to be relocated to avoid this potential problem.

These are included in the proposed extension to the Headington Residents’ Parking Zone.
	
24.	Resident of Chestnut Avenue (letter)	?	Welcomes proposals but wants a raised table and humps along Hawthorn Drive, Chestnut Avenue and Ash Grove otherwise they will act as ‘bypasses’ for Barton Lane.

Does not agree with narrowing at The Black Boy pub, there is restricted vision there already, suggests locating the narrowing eastwards.	Accept that this may be a possibility but it is considered to be small due to the narrowness of the roads and parked vehicles.  Unfortunately no further monies are presently available to treat additional streets.  If the scheme goes ahead the County Council will monitor the situation and look for further funding if it is deemed necessary.

This has not been raised as an issue by the Safety Audit.	
25.	Resident of Hawthorn Avenue (letter)	?	Agrees that something needs to be done.  

Doesn’t think that road humps and tables are the best way to do it.  Problem will be shifted to Ash Grove and Chestnut avenue which will be more dangerous as it is more built up. 

Suggests closing Barton Lane with a gate at the Black Boy Pub so that this rat running will cease.	

Accept that this may be a possibility but it is considered to be small due to the narrowness of the roads and parked vehicles.  Unfortunately no further monies are presently available to treat additional streets.  If the scheme goes ahead the County Council will monitor the situation and look for further funding if it is deemed necessary.

This is not under consideration.	
26.

26 (cont)	Resident of Hawthorn Avenue (letter)	?	We are both cyclists and use these roads on a regular basis and have not noticed problems with speed of traffic in this area.

Suggest cycle area bypassing the narrowings (2 feet wide).  

Suggest gaps either side of the humps for cyclists. 

High raised tables, no need for these as cars have to slow down anyway.  Raised tables are difficult for cyclists to negotiate.

A by-pass will be provided

The design of the humps provide this.

The raised tables will slow traffic at the junctions with Chestnut Avenue and Ash Grove thus providing safer conditions for drivers exiting from them.	
27.	Resident of Hawthorn Avenue (letter)
	?	I do not want a raised treatment at Chestnut Avenue as this creates difficulties for cyclists.

Ensure that all humps have space for cyclists to pass at both edges.  	The raised junctions form an integral part of this traffic calming scheme. The raised junction will slow the traffic down forcing the vehicles entering Chestnut Avenue and Ash Grove to do so at a reduced speed.

There will be a gap either side of the hump which will allow cyclists to pass around them rather than over them.	
28.	Resident of Larkins Lane (letter)	?	Road narrowing at Larkins Lane will result in a queue forming and blocking the intersection and movements at the crossroads.  A similar situation will occur at the narrowing at No 43.

Is there evidence that having 5 humps instead of 3 would significantly effect the speed of traffic?  In addition to the inconvenience to residents they may deter cyclists currently using this route.

This is the first time that they have been consulted and hope that the details are still open to alteration, to prevent to all too frequent necessity to redesign schemes after they have been in operation for a short time.	Road narrowings are required at each end of the scheme to provide an ‘entry’ into it.  However it is recommended to remove the narrowing outside 43.  See paragraph 7 of the main report.

The criteria for spacing between humps determines the number. There will be a gap either side of the hump which will allow cyclists to pass around them rather than over them.	
29.

29.
(cont)	Resident of Larkins Lane Springfield (letter)	?	Concerned about the speed of cars coming from Barton Lane to past the junction with Larkins Lane.

Totally opposed to the narrowings, happy with the humps. 

Restricting traffic flow will not reduce the number of cars, it will increase congestion which will block exit to Larkins Lane.  The net effect will slow traffic coming from the right and speed up traffic from the left.	

The narrowings are required to provide an “entry” into the scheme.

Any queuing of traffic at the narrowing should be minimal and not be sufficient to queue back to Larkins Lane.	
30.

	The Friends of Old Headington (letter)	?	Generally support proposals.

Would like some lighting columns (same style as in the village) installed to enhance the view eastwards from the Junction with Old High Street.  

Do not agree with the siting of the narrowing at No 43.  This will increase congestion and could be dangerous.  It is too close to the bend.	

Replacement lighting will replicate the existing provision.

Amendments are proposed to the scheme that remove this narrowing.	
31.	CTC Right to Ride Representative
(email)	Yes	Ensure that humps have a sinusoidal profile for cyclists comfort.  

To make the narrowings more effective, would prefer a speed cushion to be placed in the narrowing with white lines painted round it as in Walton Street.

Overall a benefit to cycling	This is included in the design.  Also cyclists will be able to pass the hump without cycling over them.

This will be provided.	
32.	Thames Valley Police (letter).	?	The narrowing at either end of the scheme may put cyclists into conflict with other road users,  Suggest implementing a priority system at the narrowings.

It is possible that the scheme may reduce traffic using Barton Lane/Barton Road.

	The scheme does include this.	
33.	Cyclox (e-mail)
	?	Not very cycle friendly, road narrowings could result in conflicts between cyclists and cars.

Humps should be sinusoidal.	By-passes for cyclists are provided at the narrowings.	
34.	Oxford City Council (letter)	Yes	The City’s Area Committee agreed to support the implementation of the scheme for cycle safety measures.

Ask that cycle safety measures be extended to Barton Road.	

No further monies are presently available to extend the scheme.