Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2023/153

Contact: 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

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 and cyclists through this junction will be to and from the Elmsbrook estate and Northwest Bicester. At the consultation, the designer seemed to assume that the path to Elmsbrook would be only a pedestrian path and that cyclists would joint the carriageway. It is actually a shared path, and almost all walkers and cyclists will use it. It is therefore far too narrow and will cause all sorts of difficulties for users”.

Officers explained that as part of the design process, cycling and pedestrian movements had been looked at and would continue to be reviewed and amended as part of ongoing work on the design. The cyclists from Elmsbrook would not need to go onto the carriageway.

·       “Path to nowhere: the design includes a footpath on the eastern side of the B4100 north. It was pointed out to the designers that this only connected to a bus stop that has now been removed. As a result, this path is no longer required. Given that this path is now redundant, could the road be shifted across to make more space on the Elmsbrook side”

Officers stated that moving roads was major development and not possible.

The Chair had received an email from the Bicester Bike Users Group asking that the pedestrian and cycling paths should be decoupled so that the pedestrians could cross in two stages and the cyclists in a single stage as they did in the Netherlands.

Officers stated that the design that they had put forward was a safe design.

The Chair enquired about Cambridge curbs and officers stated that Cambridge curbs were costly and difficult to implement and there would be a requirement for more space which was not possible with the available footprint.

The Chair thanked everyone who had attended the engagement event and commented that the event was facilitated to provide feedback and understanding of the proposed scheme.

The Chair pointed out that the reduction of speed limit was a requirement of having a raised crossing.

The Cabinet Member for Transport Management 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