The future of the city of Oxford cannot be separated from that of the wider surrounding area from where thousands of people travel in daily to work, shop and enjoy the city’s many cultural attractions. While Oxford’s nationally important knowledge-based economy grows, space to house the people who work in and support it is shrinking. Oxford is part of the Central Oxfordshire city-region, and planning for development must be on this basis. This is the theme of Oxford Futures.
After last year’s consultation about options for relieving congestion on the A40 between Witney and Wolvercote, the County Council has published its preferred option with the expectation that it will receive cabinet approval shortly. They propose to make the road dual carriageway from the west as far as Eynsham, where there will be a new Park & Ride. From there bus lanes in each direction will be built but the road will remain a single carriageway. The bus lanes will only run as far as the bridge over the Duke’s Cut, about half a mile from the Wolvercote roundabout.
Hugh Jaeger, Chairman of Bus Users Oxford, writes these comments:
Fudge for car users
OCC’s plan is a hybrid. It proposes three miles of useful bus lane from Wolvercote to Eynsham and three miles of destructive dual carriageway between Eynsham and Shores Green. The bus lane is £12 million; the dual carriageway is £42 million.
OCC tell me that dualling a road costs about twice as much per mile as adding a bus lane on each side. The huge difference is because dual carriageways are built to much more elaborate and exacting standards. Therefore OCC’s proposal is about £21 million more than building bus lanes in both directions all the way between Shores Green and Duke’s Cut.
Almost all road expansion for at least the last five or six decades has increased traffic, and a Shores Green – Eynsham dual carriageway would do exactly the same. OCC refuses to believe it. It refuses to see that more road space will attract more car use.
OCC’s proposal does not satisfy the motor lobby. That lobby is still calling for the whole route to be dualled. Dualling between Shores Green and Eynsham will encourage demand to dual between Eynsham and Wolvercote, which in turn would require a “tin hat” bypass through the Kidlington Gap.
OCC’s only environmental consideration seems to be sensitive habitats in the area of Oxford Meadows. That was why it rejects dualling east of Eynsham but wants to dual west of Eynsham.
CO2 reduction and overall modal shift seemed to rate low on their priorities. I have seen no evidence from OCC that its A40 scheme is radical enough to fulfil either the Climate Change Act 2008 or the UK’s COP21 commitments. Instead OCC seems to be trying to placate car-dependent West Oxfordshire voters – and Witney MP David Cameron – by giving them a big new road.
Poor value for bus users
OCC’s bus lane proposal is hamstrung by its assumption that widening the bridges over the railway and canal would be too expensive. It therefore leaves the first half mile west of Wolvercote roundabout unimproved, with no bus lanes. That means half a mile of, potentially, daily car queues in which buses would still get stuck.
OCC says it would try to mitigate this with bus gates. I asked where these would be and how they would help. I was told they had not decided, and could give no more details.
I am no civil engineer. But does OCC pretend that widening the bridges to extend the bus lanes another half mile would cost more than £21 million?
Is the proposed hybrid scheme cheaper than bus lanes all the way between Shores Green and Wolvercote roundabout, including widening the bridges? I doubt it.
Of course Bus Users Oxford welcomes three miles of new bus lane on the A40. Eastbound from Eynsham to Duke’s Cut had already been decided upon; what this scheme would add is a westbound bus lane from Duke’s Cut to Eynsham. But the scheme is seriously compromised by both the missing half mile between Wolvercote and Duke’s Cut and the three miles of dual carriageway between Eynsham and Shores Green.
OCC’s current proposal for the A40 is not the most environmental option. It is not even the most affordable option. And it is certainly not radical enough to be called a solution.
Several key sites including the large area around Oxford Station and Oxpens; land on both sides of the railway; the area between Hythe Bridge Street and Park End Street, and the Osney Mead industrial estate are likely to be redeveloped over the next ten years. This offers a unique chance to create a new gateway to our historic city, a first class transport interchange, space for a range of employment and much needed housing.
In the past major developments have tended to be carried out piecemeal, each with a Master Plan which often failed to consider what would be happening in neighbouring areas. Oxford Civic Society realised this was a great opportunity to bring together a wide range of interested parties and encourage them to look for ways of co-ordinating their plans and create an outstanding new area of the city.
Together with the Academy of Urbanism, Oxford Civic Society organised a well-attended workshop on 16 March 2016. Represenatives of most of the main stakeholders – Oxford City and Oxfordshire County, Oxford University, Nuffield College, local residents’ associations, major developers and environmental groups came together to see if they could find a way forward which would deliver a successful and enduring future for this central part of the city. The workshop demonstrated that the old Parish of St Thomas offers space to enlarge the city centre to service a greater Oxford. If it is developed imaginatively it can help provide affordable housing, generate better jobs, solve transport problems, help reduce pollution and improve the quality of life for all. This will not be achieved without many years of effort.
A full report of the day’s procedings has been produced and is freely available for download here. It’s conclusions are summed up by three of the participants:
‘We need to get a vision, then a framework and a structure to make it happen’ – Bob Price: Leader, Oxford City Council.
‘We have to look fifty years ahead; we need a framework that is flexible so investors are bound to something they can evolve’ – Patrick Eve: Savills’ Partners.
‘The next step is to ask the stakeholders what their plans are, (and in a larger venue)’ – Peter Thompson: Chairman, Oxford Civic Society
The report sets out three “next steps” needed to put this ambitious project on a path towards a successful conclusion:
- The principal landowners need to meet regularly to continue to understand each other’s ambitions and expectations.
- The spatial linkages need to be mapped to identify the key infrastructure requirements, short and long term and feasibility studies will be needed to resolve key options e.g. transport links.
- A budget will be required to engage the community (especially young people) in what the area can offer and funding sources and management arrangements need to be identified and investigated.
Oxford Civic Society and Oxford Futures will continue to work with all the organisations and agencies involved to encourage the creation of an attractive, integrated, functional and sustainable new quarter of the City centre.
OCS response to consultation, Nov 2015
The County Council’s consultation on investing in the A40 is premature. It ignores the pending review of the Oxfordshire Strategic Economic Plan; Local Plans which will determine where new development and the traffic it generates will go have still not been finished; the County doesn’t explain how any of the options tie in with its long-term transport plan LTP4. We urgently need a properly-coordinated strategic development plan for the whole of the Central Oxfordshire region
People are being asked to choose between options without having the facts they need, such as traffic volumes. The bottleneck at the Wolvercote roundabout is already being addressed, so its far from clear whether anything needs to be done now. A number of other key questions require answers if meaningful consideration of ‘solutions’ is to be given, and it is not clear whether these questions have been properly considered in the preparation of the consultation.
OXFORD CIVIC SOCIETY Response to Oxfordshire County Council consultation
We have some serious criticisms to make regarding the circumstances within which this consultation is being conducted, as well as observations on the analysis of the problems which the proposed options for action might be intended to address, and on the various solutions suggested.
Strategic planning void
The consultation material provides no explanation of why it is necessary to come to a view at the present time about longer term options for the A40 corridor. It is entirely premature to present the public with specific transport options purported to cost £100m and more in the absence of a coherent Oxford-regional land use or development strategy for a similar, i.e. longer-term time frame. Public investments on this scale will depend for their justification on facilitating particular major developments and alleviating highway congestion through the promotion of more efficient and sustainable transport modes.
It has been reported that the Oxfordshire Strategic Economic Plan will be reviewed and updated between November 2015 and March 2016, and it is inevitable that this review will consider development options likely to have a bearing on priorities for transport improvements across the Central Oxfordshire region, including for the A40 corridor. The current consultation is therefore premature on this count, since it is impossible for anyone, least of all the general public to reach appropriate conclusions on strategic highway improvement options when such uncertainty prevails. This consultation fails to make any reference to the forthcoming SEP review.Continue reading
The city of Oxford, and indeed many parts of our county, are faced with a wide range of challenges that constrain our ability to provide a world class environment for our people. In June, three strategic organisations joined together for the Oxford Sustainable Future Symposium, which explored a route to addressing many of these issues.
The Symposium was attended by 85 people, representing all six local councils, the boards of the Local Enterprise Partnership (OxLEP) and the Oxford Strategic Partnership (OSP), both universities (Oxford and Oxford Brookes), local colleges and a wide range of businesses, as well as various community interest groups.
We set out to gain a deeper, shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities that face our community; to establish a collective will to find and deliver realistic solutions; and to reach some agreement on how we can best work together to create a sustainable future in a timely and resourceful way.
We were challenged by our speaker, Lord Drayson, to focus on creating a single voice to which Government can respond more effectively with appropriate levels of support and investment. Many of you will know Paul Drayson from his days as a local businessman. He is well aware of both the conflicts that exist in our local government structure and the attitudes that are held in Whitehall.
We recognised that maintaining the status quo is not an option if we are to benefit from Government support. We also recognised that there is some urgency to act. We need a unified voice and effective leadership for the city and county. We also need to create suitable mechanisms for developing a shared sense of place and for delivering sustainable planned-for growth.
This editorial appeared in The Oxford Times on Thursday 30 April 2015.