Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2019/183

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

 

Report by Director for Community Operations (Interim) (CMDE4).

 

The Botley Road Improvement project builds upon objectives set out in the Oxford Transport Strategy where a study of Botley Road was completed in 2016 which confirmed, following stakeholder feedback, the value of a high-quality route that prioritised sustainable transport modes to ease congestion, reduce journey times and improve journey experience.The project includes a package of measures aimed at:    

a.         encourage greater use of more sustainable modes of transport - buses, cycling and walking

b.         ease congestion on the route

c.         improve bus journey times so buses have an advantage over general traffic

d.         provide a safer, more continuous and attractive route for cyclists and pedestrians 

e.         reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality.

f.          Unlock economic growth and job creation opportunities by benefiting development sites with improved access and additional capacity.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposals as advertised, with the following amendments;

 

a)        Parking layby outside nos 63 to 69 Botley Road to remain resulting in no requirement for amendments to permit holder only parking places on Alexandra Road and Oatlands Road,

b)        No amendments to permit holder only parking places on Harley Road and Riverside Road, and

c)        Parking layby outside nos 119 to 121 Botley Road to be removed. Two (2) no. parking places limiting waiting to 1 hour (no return within one hour) to be provided on highway verge to opposite side of Botley Road resulting in no requirement for amendments to permit holder only parking places on Duke Street and Earl Street.

 

 

 

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) the latest elements for the Botley Road Improvement project in order to build on objectives set out in the Oxford Transport Strategy for a high-quality route that prioritised sustainable transport modes to ease congestion, reduce journey times and improve journey experience through a package of measures aimed at:    

a.         encouraging greater use of more sustainable modes of transport - buses, cycling and walking;

b.         easing congestion on the route;

c.         improving bus journey times so buses have an advantage over general traffic;

d.         providing a safer, more continuous and attractive route for cyclists and pedestrians;

e.         reducing vehicle emissions and improve air quality;

f.          unlocking economic growth and job creation opportunities by benefiting development sites with improved access and additional capacity.

James Griffiths spoke against removal of the parking layby outside 119 to 121 Botley Road.  The bay had been there since the 1970s to facilitate the shops and was integral to his launderette business enabling customers to unload and carry heavy wet washing. It was in constant use and a lifeline for his business.  The spaces on the opposite side of the road would not work for his customers and he estimated removal of the bay would result in a 30% loss of revenue and business for just 100 metres of additional bus lane.

 

Darian Stibbe congratulated the county council on the scheme particularly the proposed 20 mph. However, he felt for safety reasons that that needed to be extended further west to include the Waitrose junction which was extremely busy, complex and cluttered and hard for pedestrians to cross with cars accelerating from the end of the current 20 restricted area. It was an arbitrary judgement but one which he felt would be of huge benefit.

 

Responding to the Cabinet Member Mr Warren confirmed that Department for Transport advice stressed that local speed limits needed to make sense to the average user and take into account the surrounding environment and how that looked to road users. Also current average speeds at this point were above 24mph and so Department advice commended the use of 20mph limits only in conjunction with other supporting measures. As there was no provision for that therefore 20 could be commended only if self-supporting. Unfortunately, national data showed that such compliance was low when not supported by such measures. There were no concerns regarding to the new toucan crossing and the proposed 30 mph speed limit.

 

Mr Dryden endorsed the comments made by Mr Stibbe regarding extension of the 20mph restriction. However, he had a number of concerns namely:

 

·                     Extension of the 20mph speed limit beyond the Waitrose frontage should be implemented now and not delayed until the as yet unfunded Phase 2.

·                     Retention of the eastbound bus stop at its current location outside the pedestrian entrance to Waitrose and not moving it 62 metres to the east as proposed as that would result in bus users having to cross additional vehicle routes including 2 driveways and entry and exit points from Waitrose.

·                     Retention or improvement of the current crossing point immediately outside the pedestrian entrance to Waitrose between the east and west bound bus stops as this was on the desire line.

·                     Not providing the proposed toucan crossing as that was not on a desire line but would increase the walking distance for bus users shopping at Waitrose by 90 metres and severely reduce the length of the right turn lane into Riverside Road from 16 to 10 metres resulting in delays to traffic going towards Oxford.

 

He felt that these issues had been considered in isolation rather than taking an holistic approach to ensure interaction between each of the elements. In particular there appeared to be an obsession with providing a toucan crossing in this section which was both unnecessary and potentially dangerous as it was in the wrong place and should be incorporated into the bus gate.

 

Responding to the Cabinet Member Mr Warren confirmed that the bus stop needed to be relocated because of the crossing which needed to be there because of kerb length and the bus stop opposite.  He appreciated the point made regarding the desire line but this facility was not just form pedestrians.  Consideration could be given to retaining the central refuge along with issue of the right turn into Riverside Road.

 

Mr Rossington confirmed that the crossing outside Waitrose was being promoted to help movement in that area and was as close to the Waitrose site as it could be.  In an ideal world it could be sited closer but arrangements could be monitored as the scheme developed.

 

Alison Hill (Cyclox) welcomed the scheme on behalf of the cycling community but wished to express concerns about unsafe junctions. The Eynsham road junction was extremely unsafe and the hope was that OCC could now be a lead on best practice.  Cyclox had been disappointed that their objections had not been covered in the report and they would like to see a signalled junction or Dutch style roundabout provided.  As larger numbers of cyclists were expected to travel in from the west Cyclox would welcome the opportunity to work with the county council on this sort of provision from an early stage.

 

Responding to the Cabinet Member Mr Warren confirmed that the council had looked at different types of junction and would be happy to engage in discussion with the cycling community.

 

The Cabinet Member suggested the cycling community set up a working group for officers to contact on these issues.

Graham Smith (Cycling UK) urged the Cabinet Member not to approve the proposals as advertised. He felt the scheme although laudable and appearing to build on the objectives of the Oxford Transport Strategy and the county’s published cycling design guidance failed to reflect those policies. The most important part of any highway project was the initial scoping which had to be drawn up before any consultation was carried out but the complexity of these schemes required an understanding of the points raised by respondees which in this case had drawn an inadequate response. Decisions about major junction designs were quite likely to be defined by those earliest decisions such as do we need grade separation, a signalled junction or roundabout. What has been proposed at Eynsham Road does not consider these issues and the A420 junction issues have again only been partly resolved. Design needed to be undertakine in line with the county policy and to make junctions safe for all users incorporating physical segregation. Designs were poor with regard to width of foot and cycle provision, little information regarding surface quality and no resolution of drive crossovers of side road treatments.  And flat surfaces on refuges for wheelchair users.  These issues needed to be resolved.prior to any approval.

 

Mr Warren confirmed that the detailed design would offer an opportunity to pick up on demarcation issues and the various points raised and while there was no scope to go back to the drawing board they accepted the comment from the Cabinet Member that input from the cycling community through the group which they would be appointing to influence the scheme in an effective way would be welcome.

 

Robin Tucker (Cycling UK) reiterated the views expressed regarding early involvement from affected groups.  The scheme was good in many ways but not as good as it could be namely junctions and cycle ways alongside parking spaces. These sorts of scheme were often diluted as they progressed with detail often affecting delivery of the project such as Access to Headington.  It would have been better for cycling groups to have been involved earlier but they were there to help.

 

The Cabinet Member acknowledged problems with the Headington scheme largely as a result of the scheme continuing to grow. However, things had changed and the focus on such schemes improved.

 

City Councillor Colin Cook as a regular daily cyclist on the Botley Road thanked officers for their work on this scheme which he commended.  He supported the request by Mr Griffiths for provision of a disabled bay outside the launderette, welcomed further investigative work on bus stops to help eliminate conflict between pedestrians and cyclists but was disappointed that the 20mph limit was not being extended.

 

County Councillor Judy Roberts supported calls for provision of lights or Dutch roundabout at the Eynsham Road junction and concerns expressed about the A420 junction.  With regard to the staggered crossing at Westway she considered this to be dangerous and a light controlled facility would be much safer.  Also she renewed calls for the pavement width on one side which was currently too narrow to be increased. There was also local support for a 20mph speed limit.  Regarding Old Botley Island this was now a rat run but also a route to school.  More people were now walking on the Botley Road and habits were slowly changing.  That needed to be encouraged and although she liked the ethos of the report she felt it was not brave enough. Although not part of this scheme she advised that she would continue to campaign for the speed limit on Cumnor Hill to be reduced to 30.

 

Responding to the Cabinet Member Mr Rossington confirmed the staggered crossing had been subject to a safety audit with the staggered element helping bus movements. The issue of removal of the central islands could be looked at again along with pavement width issues. Regarding Old Botley Island that could also be looked at but as the scheme was operating to a limited budget the priority was for on line improvements. 

 

County Councillor Susanna Pressel welcomed the scheme but hoped that consultation on Phase 2 would incorporate some of the points made previously in order to reach an innovative solution to help all users.  She was disappointed that officers were not proposing coloured cycle lanes and that the 20mph limit was not for the whole length. There was a great deal of support for that and she felt the time was right to do that. She also called for good signage for off route cycle lanes and safer right turns.

 

The Cabinet Member thanked the speakers for their input.

 

She was unable to support retention of the layby outside the launderette or provision of a disabled parking bay.  The intention of the scheme was to introduce bus lanes and it was to be hoped that provision of the 2 spaces on the opposite side would help to offset any impact to Mr Griffiths’ business.

 

She supported extension of the 20mph limit to the new toucan crossing and on the advice of officers that that would require further consultation noted that that would come back before her at a future meeting.

 

She supported the joint initiative between the county council and the coalition group from the various cycling groups.

 

She noted that officers had agreed to look again at retentionof the central islands near Waitrose.

 

She noted that a reduction of the Cumnor Hill speed limit would need a separate application via the Parish Council.

 

The issue of pavement width at Westway in connection with the staggered crossing element would need to be considered.

 

She was keen to see an improvement for pedestrian use on Old Botley Island but could not support removal of islands from A420 at the current time but possibly as part of Phase 2.

 

She could not support a 20 mph limit along the whole length of Botley Road.

 

She could not support coloured cycle lane s because of maintenance concerns.

 

Officers would look at arrangements for right turns.

 

She noted that officers would discuss with the cycling group arrangements for the Eynsham and A420 junctions.

 

Therefore, having regard to the information set out in the report before her along with the representations made to her at the meeting the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed her decision as follows:

 

to approve the proposals as advertised, with the following amendments:

 

a)     parking layby outside nos 63 to 69 Botley Road to remain resulting in no requirement for amendments to permit holder only parking places on Alexandra Road and Oatlands Road,

b)     no amendments to permit holder only parking places on Harley Road and Riverside Road;

c)     parking layby outside nos 119 to 121 Botley Road to be removed. Two (2) no. parking places limiting waiting to 1 hour (no return within one hour) to be provided on highway verge to opposite side of Botley Road resulting in no requirement for amendments to permit holder only parking places on Duke Street and Earl Street;

d)     re-consult on an extension of the 20mph speed limit to include the new toucan crossing by Waitrose;

e)     cycling Groups be invited to set up a coalition group to help advise on design work to include further discussion on junction design specifically Eynsham Road and A420 slip and design of cycle facilities;

f)      support location of toucan crossing at Riverside Road and relocated bus stop (in conjunction with next 2 actions down);

g)     officers to look again at retaining the central pedestrian crossing island outside Waitrose;

h)     officers to investigate reducing size of central traffic island to east of the proposed toucan crossing at Riverside Road to maximise length of right turn lane;

i)       officers to look at widening the pavement in connection with the staggered crossing at Westway. Possible need to reconsult on that and, if so, consider inclusion with the re-consultation on the 20 mph extension;

j)       investigate Old Botley Island area to see if it is possible to make improvements for pedestrians;

k)     no support at present for removal of Islands along A420 Botley Road;

l)       no support for a 20mph limit on whole length of Botley Road;

m)   no support for provision of coloured cycle lanes;

n)     officers to consider signage for off road cycle routes and provision of safer right turns to connect to the quiet off-road routes.

 

 

 

Signed…………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Environment

 

Date of signing……………………………

.