Issue - meetings
Bicester - A4095 / B4100 Banbury Road roundabout improvements - proposed 30mph speed limit and raised side road entry treatment at Fringford Road
Meeting: 12/10/2023 - Delegated Decisions by Cabinet Member for Highway Management (Item 179)
PDF 2 MBContact: Mohamed Gulamhussein, Project Manager, mohamed.gulamhussein@oxfordshire.gov.uk
Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMDHM12).
A decision is required on a proposed improvement of the A4095 / B4100 Banbury Road roundabout including also the adjacent junction with Fringford Road.
The Cabinet Member for Highway Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the following as advertised:
a. 30mph speed limits on the approaches to the junction, namely: B4100 Banbury Road, B4100 Bicester to Aynho road, A4095 Lords Lane, and A4095 Southwold Lane,
b. 30mph speed limit on Fringford Road, and
c. Flat top road hump across Fringford Road at its junction with Southwold Lane
Additional documents:
Decision:
The Cabinet Member for Highway Management is APPROVED
the following as advertised:
a) 30mph speed limits on the approaches to the junction, namely: B4100 Banbury Road, B4100 Bicester to Aynho road, A4095 Lords Lane, and A4095 Southwold Lane,
b) 30mph speed limit on Fringford Road, and
c) Flat top road hump across Fringford Road at its junction with Southwold Lane
Minutes:
The report presented responses received to a consultation on the proposal to introduce 30mph speed limits on the approaches to the junction, namely: B4100 Banbury Road, B4100 Bicester to Aynho road, A4095 Lords Lane, and A4095 Southwold Lane, 30mph speed limit on Fringford Road, and flat top road hump across Fringford Road at its junction with Southwold Lane.
The Chair read out a question submitted under item 2 of the agenda by Councillor Donna Ford and the response given.
The Chair had received an email from Councillor Damion Maquire, Chair of the Environment Committee, Bicester Town Council and asked officers to respond to a number of points that he made:
· “Lack of buffer zones between the paths and the road in many areas which make cycling and walking safe at the road edges”.
Officers responded that they had incorporated buffers on the western section. Incorporating buffers on the north-eastern section had been challenging due to ecological and archaeological impacts. Buffers had been applied to the extent to which they had been able to do so.
· “Lack of segregation: While many of the paths are segregated, there is a large area on one corner where cyclists and pedestrians will be forced to share the same space. In general, both pedestrians and cyclists are very much against this”.
Officers explained that a stage 1 safety audit on the design had been completed and a stage 2 safety audit was to be undertaken which would ensure the design was compliant and safe for people to use. There were still some minor details to be reviewed but wherever possible sufficient space had been allowed for users, whether cyclist or pedestrian.
· “Path differentiation: On segregated paths, it is important for vulnerable users to be able to distinguish between the cycle and pedestrian paths. We have a good example of new infrastructure at the former Barrus development on the Launton Road where a gentle kerb has been used to provide a slight level difference between the paths for the two users. It would be good to see similar for this new junction”.
Officers stated that they had provided segregated cyclist routes on the western section and wherever possible. Greater usage had been determined on the western side. The north-eastern corner had shared paths which were compliant with LT120 policy. There were several technical engineering challenges in the north-eastern corner, such as gas mains, electrical cables, and archaeological sensitivity, which had made it difficult to widen the footprint. Budget constraints had also been a factor.
· “Pinch points at the on ramps: There are quite sharp corners on all of the on ramps for cyclists leaving the road and joining the paths. These are likely to be a particular obstacle for cargo bikes. I had understood that these were being addressed following the last planning application, but some further work is needed”.
Officers commented that it was technically possible to do that and was part of the design review.
· “Pinch point for Elmsbrook: The main route for pedestrians ... view the full minutes text for item 179
Meeting: 07/09/2023 - Delegated Decisions by Cabinet Member for Highway Management (Item 152)
Contact: Mohamed Gulamhussein, Project Manager, mohamed.gulamhussein@oxfordshire.gov.uk
Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMDHM11).
A decision is required on a proposed improvement of the A4095 / B4100 Banbury Road roundabout including also the adjacent junction with Fringford Road.
The Cabinet Member for Highway Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the following as advertised:
a. 30mph speed limits on the approaches to the junction, namely: B4100 Banbury Road, B4100 Bicester to Aynho road, A4095 Lords Lane, and A4095 Southwold Lane,
b. 30mph speed limit on Fringford Road, and
c. Flat top road hump across Fringford Road at its junction with Southwold Lane
d. Confirm Option B - Orthodox Dutch Design Proposal – for the signalised junction.
Decision:
The Cabinet Member for Highway Management APPROVED the following as advertised:
d. Confirm Option B - Orthodox Dutch Design Proposal – for the signalised junction.
The Cabinet Member for Highway Management DEFERRED the following as advertised:
a. 30mph speed limits on the approaches to the junction, namely: B4100 Banbury Road, B4100 Bicester to Aynho road, A4095 Lords Lane, and A4095 Southwold Lane,
b. 30mph speed limit on Fringford Road, and
c. Flat top road hump across Fringford Road at its junction with Southwold Lane.
Minutes:
The Chair invited the speaker to address the meeting and responded to points raised.
The Chair commented that there had been a lot of responses to the consultation which were very welcome and thanked respondents for taking the trouble to respond.
The Chair noted that most objections were due to the speed limit and many respondents felt that the current speed limit worked well. Officers confirmed that due to a number of significant developments in the area, the current speed limit would not be appropriate in the future, based on traffic modelling and expert advice. Officers also advised that the reduction of speed limit was necessary to facilitate the installation of the flat top road hump and safe cycle crossings.
The Chair noted that there was a stakeholder engagement meeting with the Parish Council and residents, planned for October. Officers explained that the objective of the meeting was to explain the traffic modelling and provide information on the scheme. Should there be any relevant feedback which would improve the scheme, it could be incorporated. Officers planned to start implementing the scheme in January 2024.
The Chair decided to defer the decision for items a - c to the next meeting to allow the stakeholder engagement meeting to go ahead first.
The Cabinet Member for Highway Management APPROVED the following as advertised:
d. Confirm Option B - Orthodox Dutch Design Proposal – for the signalised junction.
The Cabinet Member for Highway Management DEFERRED the following as advertised:
b. 30mph speed limit on Fringford Road, and
c. Flat top road hump across Fringford Road at its junction with Southwold Lane.