Issue - meetings
Abingdon: Wootton Road - Cycle Safety Improvements
Meeting: 10/10/2013 - Delegated Decisions by Cabinet Member for Environment (including Transport) (Item 16)
16 Abingdon: Wootton Road - Cycle Safety Improvements 
PDF 53 KB
Forward Plan Ref: 2013/145
Contact: Roy Newton, Service Manager – Infrastructure Planning Tel: (01865) 815704
Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial) (CMDE6).
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Cabinet Member for Environment considered a proposed scheme funded wholly by the Department for Transport to address safety issues for cyclists at the Wootton Road/Dumore Road roundabout in Abingdon. A number of representations had been received to a public consultation.
Also tabled were two late objections. One from the cyclists touring club stated that the scheme offered no improvement in safety for cyclists who wished to remain on the highway and questioned the amount of focus given to improving off road cycle provision. The Oxonian cycle club stated that the proposed scheme would make cycling less safe, less desirable and cause more delays for cyclists while acknowledging some positive aspects of the scheme.
Officers advised that the scheme only focussed on the one arm where records had shown accidents were concentrated. The scheme would reduce the overall speed around the roundabout through the use of imprint around the central island, along with the tightening of the radius from Dunmore Road to Wootton Road, increasing the deflection, reducing entry speeds from Dunmore Road allowing more time for motorists to see cyclists. Both objections question the width of the off road shared use paths, which were to be 2.5 metres wide, other than the preferred minimum of 3.0 metres. This was primarily to keep the scheme within budget, but should the detailed design process result in savings, the paths could be widened to 3.0 metres where possible. Further issues raised were common with other objections and addressed in annex 2 to the report CMDE.
Graham Smith (CTC) questioned the integrity of the scheme which he considered inadequate and dangerous. The plan attached to the report was difficult to read and he tabled a new plan. He stressed a calmer stream of traffic was essential and the most effective way of achieving that was by reducing traffic speed. This scheme failed to do that. It proposed installation of unprotected entries and he considered the toucan crossing would be largely ignored and represented expenditure which could be better spent elsewhere on the scheme. He was also concerned regarding the pedestrian deterrent pavement. The scheme needed a complete redesign.
Mr Wasley undertook to address some of the technical and minor issues with the cycling organisations. In the meantime he considered the scheme addressed the brief given and catered for both experienced and inexperienced cyclists. The width of the scheme had been reduced in order to meet the budget available and a series of compromises had been necessary to keep within budget which itself was time constrained. He felt the scheme as proposed best met the requirements given.
Councillor Sanders had some concerns regarding the siting of the new toucan crossing and whether that might encourage users to go straight across.
Mr Wasley advised that the pedestrian deterrent paving should prevent that.
Mr Kemp advised that the scheme could be delayed slightly without putting at risk the available grant which would allow time to look at the scheme in a bit more detail.