Access to Headington – financial costs

County Cllr Roz Smith sent in a question about costs to the Cabinet member for Transport. The answer to this question has been published on the County’s website, and is worded as follows.

Councillor Roz Smith

“Access to Headington project – a question about costs

Please could the Cabinet Member give further details on costs relating to the Project:

  • expenditure to date on consultants/consultancy work
  • approximate costs for the proposed raised pedestrian entry treatments recommended by officers
  • approximate financial savings generated from changes to the original proposals made after consultation as per the officer’s report & recommendations
  • approximate costs for the changes to the double mini-roundabouts and junctions in Headley Way, and the changes to the mini roundabout junction into the JR Hospital?”

 

Response by Cabinet Member for Environment

“The information you requested is set out below.

  • Expenditure to date on consultants/consultancy work – £517,000
  • Approximate costs for the proposed raised pedestrian entry treatments recommended by officers – £6,000 – £8,000 per treatment. Actual cost depends on the amount of drainage work required. Cost also includes traffic management.
  • Approximate financial savings generated from changes to the original proposals made after consultation as per the officer’s report & recommendations – no savings have been made by changing theproposals; in fact there is an additional cost for the provision of the retaining wall on the western side of Headley Way which is estimated to cost £246,243. The additional costs will be funded from the existing project budget. 
  • Approximate costs for the changes to the double mini-roundabouts and junctions in Headley Way -£2.5m (including public realm improvements)
  • Approximate costs to changes to the mini roundabout junction into the JR Hospital – £845,000

Costs may change as the detailed design process continues, but these are the latest estimates we have.”

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Roz Smith

“I note it’s estimated that for every £1 spent there would be a benefit of £3.50 but how would that be monitored and by who.”

Response by Cabinet Member

“Essentially there is a required minimum level of value for money which is part of the agreement for the scheme along with a requirement for before and after monitoring.”

Consultation: pedestrianisation of Queen Street

There is a County Council consultation setting out proposals for pedestrianizing Queen Street. Here is their information below.

Summary

  • Oxfordshire County Council proposes to improve Queen Street in central Oxford by prohibiting buses, taxis and private hire vehicles from using it. This would in effect make the street largely ‘pedestrianised’ – similar to Cornmarket.  
  • No changes are proposed to access for cyclists and delivery vehicles, which would continue to be permitted between 6pm and 10am.    
  • Between New Road and New Inn Hall Street (i.e. through Bonn Square), cycling will continue to be permitted 24 hours a day, as now.

Why pedestrianise Queen Street

Queen Street forms part of one of the main east-west routes across the city centre, and pedestrian and cycle numbers are expected to increase significantly in future as a result of development in the city’s West End and elsewhere across Oxford

It is vital that strong pedestrian and cycle links are maintained and encouraged, and improvements to the pedestrian experience are made, to ensure a well-connected and joined up city centre that will continue to thrive

The pedestrianisation of Queen Street is part of the county council’s Local Transport Plan and Oxford City Council’s development plan for the West End, the West End Area Action Plan. It is an important element of wider improvements to the public realm in the city centre, such as the recent transformation of Frideswide Square

It is proposed that the changes required to pedestrianise Queen Street are made by the time the new Westgate centre opens in autumn 2017

This is because major changes to bus routes and stops will be required when the new Westgate centre opens in any event. Co-ordinating these changes with the Queen Street proposals will minimise disruption and will also mean Queen Street will be better able to cope with the increased numbers of pedestrians and cyclists going to and from the enlarged Westgate centre once it opens

This proposal is not part of the Westgate development, but Oxfordshire County Council is working closely with the Westgate Oxford Alliance (the owners of the Westgate centre) to plan this project

Proposed changes

The project includes a package of measures to provide alternative arrangements for buses, taxis, and private hire including:

  • New bus routes around the city centre to allow buses to avoid Queen Street and serve the expanded Westgate centre
  • A new bus turnaround at the Worcester Street/New Road junction, including new zebra crossing facilities on New Road, Worcester Street and Park End Street
  • Changes to bus stop locations, including removal of the bus stop in Bonn Square
  • Changes to the pick and set down points for many bus services
  • Relocation of loading bays on certain streets
  • Relocation of disabled parking bays on certain streets
  • Relocation of taxi rank at Carfax

Project costs and funding

It is estimated that the infrastructure required to close Queen Street will cost around £965,000. This includes some major works to create the turnaround at the Worcester Street/New Road junction, provision of new bus stops and shelters, and changes to pavements

At this stage the project is not fully funded; funding sources are to be confirmed following further design work to finalise the proposals, including consideration of the feedback from this consultation.

This consultation

This consultation will run from 9th May to 6th June. Your views are invited on all aspects of the proposals.

Future consultation on Traffic Regulation Orders

Some of the proposals require amendments to existing Traffic Regulation Orders. These will be advertised separately later in the summer, as part of the formal consultation on the scheme

Responses to this consultation will be used to further refine the scheme in advance of that formal consultation

Project timetable (subject to consultation and funding)

Initial consultation                                     May/June 2016

Consultation on TRO amendments          Summer 2016

Detailed design commences                    Autumn 2016

Construction period                                  April – Sept 2017

Westgate opens and changes come into effect   October 2017

Details of all of the proposals are available at https://consultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/consult.ti/Queen_Street_Pedestrianisation/consultationHome.

Paper copies are available on request.

contact details are below.

Oxfordshire County Council

Speedwell Street

OX1 1NE

Or e-mail them at:

The deadline for comments is: Monday 6th June 2016

Telephone: 01865 792422

LTS.Team@oxfordshire.gov.uk

 

Proposals to retain some parking in Headley Way and Windmill Road

Please click the links for Headley Way or for Windmill Road from the Access to Headington web page to view these new proposals.

https://consultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/consult.ti/A2H_TRO_additional_options/consultationHome

We wish to thank the County Council’s transport planning team for taking into account the responses made to earlier stages of this consultation.

Comments on these new proposals should be sent in by 23rd May, details are available on the above website

Twenty questions for the energy pipe press launch tomorrow

Here is our latest list of questions sent in by residents

Timescale

  1. What are the working hours? Will it include weekend working? On what dates will be the work be in my area?
  2. If work starts at either end simultaneously, will Old Rd and London Rd be affected at the same time? Will whole roads be closed either end?

How does it work?

  1. Can they explain the technology? How much carbon reduction do they intend to achieve?at what cost? and cost/ ton? What is the benchmark above which it becomes unaffordable? if the planners are considering all aspects of carbon reduction then consideration should also be given to the manufacture of the steel tubing, (China?) fittings, and insulation plus the cost of storage and transport to site, storage, reloading onto vehicles to the various sections of the site during the installation. The fuel used in excavation vehicles, back filling and testing plus the non green effect of the traffic congestion that will occur throughout Headington throughout the contract period.
  2. How large will the trench be and what about all the other cables, drains, sewage. Size of pipes too
  3. Is it steam or water? If it leaks under high pressure, would this damage road and paths?

Extent of the disruption

  1. How will noise and dust be controlled?
  2. Will pedestrian access along streets be affected?
  3. How will highways and footpaths be kept clean?
  4. Can we see the detailed construction plan?
  5. Can we have our pavements and footpaths resurfaced following the work? What quid pro quo can we obtain for all the disturbance?
  6. Protection of trees? In Stapleton Road for example the line is very close to the kerb so difficult to see how trees can be protected?
  7. What are the arrangements for emergency vehicles?
  8. Will refuse collections operate as normal?

Parking

  1. What arrangements for parking for contractors’ vehicles?
  2. What alternative car parking arrangements will be made for residents who may be unable to park near their house/in their drives while the work is in their street?

Communications strategy

16 Why hold a press launch – there could only be 4 or 5 press outfits interested, and why not have arranged to meet community groups already?

17 Have commercial and institutional organisations been informed? e.g. Taxi companies, delivery vehicles to/from main shops e.g. Blanchfords,  Online grocery providers, Mace on  ORC, Brookes, particularly re arrival at start of Semester 2 (NB  at Ward Focus  it transpired that Manager of Stagecoach  was not aware )

18 Have the emergency services even been informed?

Consultation with residents

19 Can we have a liaison group comprising residents reps, councillors and the contractors to meet regularly throughout the project do deal with residents issues and various construction contingences? This worked well during the Brookes JHB project.

Enforcement

20 Who will enforce the agreed working arrangements? What are the statutory controls – as opposed to the contractual conditions?

Access to Headington proposals: response from Roz, Altaf and Ruth

The response from Headington Lib Dem councillors to the County’s proposals are now published.

Our response is in three parts:

Comments on the proposals: click on  Headington Lib Dem councillors response to Access to Headington consultation 150807

Appendix giving additional comments received from residents: click on Appendix 150807

Comments on the consultation process: click on Headington Lib Dem councillors concerns re consultation process 150807

Here is the executive summary:

The Access to Headington consultation was not fit for purpose.  There was little context or factual data to inform the decision-making of residents, many of whom were not made aware of the proposals until late in the day. (see separate document on the consultation)

We believe that these proposals do not achieve their objective to support health and well-being, and reduce transport’s environmental impact.

Transport congestion in Headington is most acute for approximately 4 hours a day, five days a week during term-times.  These proposals will significantly affect Headington residents 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year round. Impact on residents is disproportionate.


The proposals focus on incoming commuter traffic from outside Headington, but do not take local context and local traffic needs of the whole community sufficiently into account.


We oppose the removal of an as yet unspecified number of trees and verges proposed by the County Council, (see general comments, section 3).


We believe that better alternative proposals for road layout and cycle improvements can be made that are more environmental sustainable, and list some ideas proposed by local residents (see projects).


We do not believe the current proposals for cycling improvements give sufficient priority for the safety of cyclists at junctions. We believe that, where possible, cycle routes should be segregated e.g. adjacent to Marston Road. If carriage width allows, we believe that mandatory cycle lanes should be accommodated, but not at the expense of the loss of trees (see general comments, section 6)


We oppose the proposals to remove on-street parking for reasons stated (see general comments, section 4).


We have concerns about the scheme’s impact on access to parking and/or frontages for disabled residents on Cherwell Drive, Headley Way and Windmill Road where existing on-street parking including disabled spaces could be removed, and this raises equalities concerns. (see section 1, area 2)


We believe that greater priority should be given to pedestrians in the next round of proposals. (general comments, section 5)


We believe these proposals will have little or no impact on modal shift by those who work in Headington.

We have sent these comments to County Cllrs Ian Hudspeth and David Nimmo-Smith, and to the County Transport Planning team.

New proposals to improve access to Headington’s employment sites

The County Council’s Access to Headington proposals can be viewed here.

We strongly urge residents to view these plans as they will impact significantly across the Headington area.

Headington is an area of significant job growth, and it also hosts many hospitals. The Government’s Local Growth Fund has allocated £8.2m for improvements in access to major employment sites in Headington, and there is an extra pot of developer money which can be used for this purpose.

Changes are proposed from the bottom of Headley Way, along London Road, along Windmill Road and the Slade, and also in Osler Road and Old Road. These include a redesigned crossroads in the centre of Headington with a pedestrian crossing which can be used diagonally. There are also changes and new junctions in and around the entrances to the JR and the Churchill sites.

In order to widen roads enough to make improvements to cycle lanes, planners are proposing to reclaim some verges and trees, and remove on-street parking from Headley Way, Windmill Road and the Slade. There are no indications within the current proposals where residents affected by this change will park their cars.

Headington Lib Dem councillors invite comments from our residents about the proposed scheme. We shall send in comments based on the views we receive.

Our initial thoughts are:

  • The potential removal of green verges and trees is contrary to the emerging Green Space policy in the draft Headington Neighbourhood Plan and  insufficient weighting has been given to green space and trees in the proposals (no indication of where these can be substituted elsewhere in Headington)
  • Will the removal of on-street parking make it easier for traffic to exceed the speed limit more often in Windmill Road  and Headley Way? (already an issue)
  • Where will residents affected by the removal of on-street spaces park their cars?
  • Which disabled parking spaces will be affected and how can the County Council help those residents?
  • Will the reduction of verges and widening of Osler Road lead to an increase in buses in this residential road?

We are currently discussing various issues with Tree Officers at both City and County, and are initiating discussion with Oxford Unlimited, a group concerned with transport issues for those with mobility challenges.

At the initial briefing, we flagged up the following suggestions:

the possibility of introducing pedestrian crossings of some sort in:

  • Windmill Road (between Langley Close and Bateman Street) to aid access to schools, improve pedestrian access, and create a break in the traffic to mitigate possible speeding
  • Headley Way (near the junction with London Road) to aid access to schools and Brookes, and improve safety as there have been near misses due to jaywalking here. The crossing lights could link into the junction lights

the possibility that ‘countdown’ crossing lights can be installed in the centre of Headington

that local construction companies and tradespeople should be contracted to do the work wherever possible

We have only just seen the plans, and will look forward to a wider public discussion before we send in comments in full. There are some very positive proposals too which we welcome, but for now we are concentrating on negotiating with the County Council over alternative options to address some of the above issues.

Contact details for the consultation:

Name Access to Headington Transport Proposals
Description The county council is developing plans to improve access across Headington and at major employment sites
Dates From 3 Jul 2015 at 00:00 to 7 Aug 2015 at 23:59.
Status Open
Contact Name Ian Williams
Contact Email Address ian.williams@oxfordshire.gov.uk
Contact Phone Number 01865 815548
Contact Postal Address Access to Headington Project,
Infrastructure Development Oxfordshire County Council,
Speedwell House (3rd Floor),
Speedwell Street,
Oxford,
OX1 1NE

Exhibitions will also be held as follows, where you will be able to view plans and discuss proposals with officers:

  • Friday 3rd July, 13:00 – 20.00

St Anthony’s of Padua, 115 Headley Way, Oxford

  • Saturday 4th July, 10:00 – 16:00

New Marston Primary School, Copse Lane, Oxford

  • Thursday 9th July, 13:00 – 20:00 

Wood Farm School, Titup Hall Drive, Oxford

  • Saturday 11th July, 10:00 – 16:00

St. Andrew’s Primary School, London Road, Oxford

 

 

Response to Connecting Oxfordshire

Headington LibDem councillors sent in the following comments to the County Council in response to LTP4/Oxford Transport Strategy

 

  1. We welcome these documents as they provide useful baseline information, and we believe that the proposals are generally well-considered and innovative, although we find it difficult to make comments on some of the ideas as we do not feel we have enough information on which to give a view.

 

  1. We look forward to the publication of proposals and options in respect of improvements to the A34 and to the public consultation later in the year.

 

  1. We believe that any work undertaken by the County Council on the detail of the projects within this scheme should be informed by consultation with Parish Councils, Neighbourhood Forums and local councillors in the area. The emerging Headington Neighbourhood Plan is likely to include transport-related proposals and projects requested by the local community after wide local consultation, and a continuing good working relationship between all parties is of benefit to all.

 

  1. We note that many of the projects listed in the Science Transit Strategy have no funding identified at this stage. The number of jobs in Headington has grown substantially in recent years and will continue to do so, particularly at university and hospital sites, and this, coupled with the lack of affordable and keyworker housing in the local area, has given rise to concerns about the volume and speed of through traffic, congestion and air pollution, and increased calls for more cycling facilities and connecting routes.

 

 

Strategic Environmental Assessment

 

  1. We believe that insufficient weighting has been given to issues arising from the strategic environmental assessment: Appendix C – effects on human health. Specifically, the following issues require further consideration and/or resolution.

 

  1. We note (p3-1) that the Association for Directors of Public Health recommends that 10% of transport budgets is committed to walking and cycling. We cannot find evidence in the proposals to show that this notional figure will be met by projects set out in the OTS.

 

  1. Section 2.4 refers to the need for a road safety strategy within and beyond the county. There is also reference to the need for programmes of safety measures within the plan. The science transit strategy in section 3.7 suggests that technology and data innovation should be embraced, and we suggest that this should be extended to unlocking accident and near miss data too.

 

 

  1. Accident numbers at junctions have been highlighted, and we support further research on the most effective way to mitigate accidents and near misses particularly at junctions of “A” roads with residential roads in Oxford City. We believe that a transport safety advice team should be allocated a budget within LTP4 to research best practice and give advice and sign off to project managers on road safety-related matters.

 

  1. We believe that insufficient weight has been given to the reduction of emissions, particularly in areas where there is a higher proportion of elderly residents and congestion is high, and that improvements in air quality should have a higher policy priority. (Section 2.9 Effect on the elderly). Overall air quality targets should meet those set out in district council air quality plans.

 

  1. Promotion of urban tree planting to improve air quality should be a key objective rather than something that may be addressed at project level. We suggest that the County identifies the species of trees that are suitable in urban areas across the city where congestion is worst.

 

 

B4955

 

  1. We note on p9, vol 2 section (i) that

Congestion has a serious impact on public transport within the Eastern Arc, making journeys on the orbital routes longer and less reliable (notably those which use the B4955)

 

  1. Given that this is a very congested route, and that the number of vehicle journeys within the Eastern Arc are high, it follows that Bus Rapid Transit line 3 would be high priority.  However the Science Transit Strategy document sets out the project for full electrification of BRT line 3 as “aspirational” rather than “proposed” with an implementation date of 2026-30 (which is odd as the “proposed” project to reopen the Cowley branch for passenger trains by Chiltern Railways with an implementation date of 2019-24 is described as intersecting BRT line 3). We suggest that the status of Bus Rapid Transit line 3 should be changed to “proposed” although we don’t have enough information yet to form a judgment on whether BRT lines are workable.

 

  1. We also note that the need for “a timed access restriction (e.g. bus gate or road user charging point) on Hollow Way” has been identified. It seems likely to us that this will displace some vehicle traffic on journeys from Cowley through to major employment destinations and schools in Headington. More vehicles may use Divinity Road and Southfield Road. Alternatively, they may use the eastern bypass, prefer not to queue up the Slade, and instead rat run through Headington Quarry Village which is a Conservation Area.

 

  1. We suggest that consideration is given to restricting vehicular access through Quarry as a through route to Headington from the bypass, and that other commonly used rat runs are identified and analysed to identify measures to reduce the volume and speed of through traffic in residential roads, e.g. in Old Headington Village from the Green Road roundabout to Northway.

 

District centres

 

  1. We recognise the difficulties in resolving tensions below:
  • The need to ensure a quality of place in district centres on the radial routes (p11)
  • The need for high quality BRT waiting facilities (p12)
  • Minimising conflict between those waiting at bus stops and other road users by allocating sufficient shelter capacity (p13)
  • BRT stops being inset from the main carriageway (p15)
  • Transit hubs at district centres would maintain safe walking and cycle access by keeping people segregated from public transport and vehicle movements.

 

  1. It is difficult to visualise how and where the above could happen in Headington District Centre, given existing highway widths. Would the County Council consider ‘buying back’ some of the privately owned frontage in front of the shops on London Road and land in Windmill Road and Headley Way?

 

  1. We agree wholeheartedly with the statement on p22 of OTS vol 2 (i) which says: “Public realm improvements should be integrated into multi-modal access improvements in the centres of Cowley and Headington, to improve pedestrian footfall, promote local shopping and stimulate local regeneration.“

 

Buses

 

  1. We currently see little in the OTS that will reduce the overall numbers of buses travelling through Headington. Is it possible to quantify the reduction in local buses that would follow from the introduction of BRT route 1?

 

  1. We are concerned about the amount of disruption that may occur during construction on major routes where rapid bus transit may be introduced. The A420 London Road is currently being re-built, but electrification is not part of the spec. Does this mean it will have to be dug up again? How long would this take? And what negative impact would this have on local traders?

 

  1. We feel that the evidence for a bus transit tunnel would be strongest between the Eastern by-pass and the JR hospital rather than in the City Centre, but we believe that such a proposal would be far too costly unless a major funding source can be identified.

 

  1. We believe there is scope to offer some bus services to and from London and the airports directly from Thornhill Park and Ride, rather than from the City Centre, and there is space there for a bus ‘laying off point’.

 

  1. We have reservations about some of the BRT routes which have been referred to by officers as ‘conceptual’, including the route across the Lye Valley, and require firmed up proposals so that we can make informed comments.

 

 

Motorists

 

  1. If CPZs are introduced across the City, there would be issues relating to the parking of commercial vehicles – is there a plan for how to deal with this?

 

  1. Given that proposals refer to an increased need for taxi use, some consideration should be given to identifying areas for taxi and minicab drivers waiting for work outside the city centre

 

  1. Short stay parking is at a minimum in Headington as our traders constantly remind us. A review of RPZs in the Headington area is long overdue.

 

  1. The proposition to build above Headington Car Park was investigated fully and discounted from Oxford City Council’s Sites and Housing Plan 2011-2026 after widespread consultation.

 

  1. Has the County Council investigated whether capacity has been reached at stakeholder workplaces e.g. BMW, all of Brookes campuses, or is there spare capacity for use by, for example, commercial vehicles? Could the County Council purchase access to excess spaces and derive income from these?

 

  1. Workplace parking levies can penalise low paid workers if passed onto employees by the employer. Some employees commute to work by car because of caring responsibilities or because the time needed to take alternative forms of transport is prohibitive- does the County have a view on what is acceptable travel to work time? More detail is needed around this proposal before we can comment further.

 

  1. We would welcome more measures to slow speeding vehicles in urban residential areas, this may encourage folk to use other means of transport.

 

  1. To reduce congestion round the hospitals, a link from the A40 direct into the JR should be considered.

 

  1. We would support a feasibility study to determine whether a system at Thornhill Park and Ride could be offered whereby hospital staff and patients could enter a code or swipe a card on entry to gain access to parking places which may be subsidized by OUHT and/or the County Council.

 

  1. We would support further research and cost-benefit analysis of road user charging to inform further thinking.

 

 

Cycling

 

  1. We believe that insufficient consideration has been given to the promotion of cycling and walking as pastimes, rather than as modes of travel to work. Quiet routes are well-used and more could be developed.

 

  1. The cycling routes outlined in the Connecting Oxfordshire document show that two cycle super routes stop at different points as they join the A420 London Road. We would support consistently signed and joined up cycle routes, particularly to and from schools and major employment sites. Cycling routes should be segregated wherever possible.

 

  1. Innovative improvements to cycle routes and signage should be piloted in areas where cycling is a popular means of transport both to work and as a pastime. The ‘safety in numbers’ principle is best tested here, and improvements could then be rolled out to other areas of the City

 

  1. Cycle super routes should be prioritised in areas with high growth in employment and/or housing. Purchase of land by the County Council to ensure that these routes meet the required standard should be considered.

 

  1. There is a demonstrated need for better cycling connections between Cowley and Headington which is not sufficiently addressed in these proposals.

 

  1. We believe that pre-signals for cyclists at traffic signal junctions would be well worth considering as these might reduce the risk of accidents at junctions.

 

  1. The routing of cycle tracks around bus stops and bus shelters needs further consideration for safety reasons. This is a frequently reported concern.

 

  1. We urge the County Council to encourage and work with hospital trusts and the universities to provide better routes and signage for cyclists on their sites.

 

  1. More work can usefully be carried out to educate cyclists, in the workplace and school, and outside. There is scope for wider stakeholder and community involvement in cycling education projects. The County could also work with stakeholders to provide training for drivers of motorized scooters.

 

  1. We fully support a city-wide cycle scheme e.g. Oxonbikes as we believe the Headington scheme has been popular, especially by those travelling to work.

 

Pedestrians

 

  1. We do not think that enough is done within the OTS to promote pedestrian transport. We would welcome a feasibility study or project to introduce puffin crossings more widely. These have sensors that detect pedestrians and also control traffic lights. The balance between traffic and pedestrians in residential areas and shopping areas should be more heavily weighted towards pedestrians in order to “ensure a quality of place” (see 15 above).

 

  1. There are desire lines for pedestrian crossings which merit further consideration, e.g. across the A420 London Road at the Osler Road junction, outside the Bury Knowle Health Centre, and across the A40 dual carriageway connecting the Risinghurst and Barton communities.

 

  1. We should like to see more projects to upgrade footpaths, which would encourage more people to walk as their chosen mode of travel. This would also help the elderly and those with mobility problems.

 

  1. School travel plans promoting safe pedestrian routes should be given a higher priority. Changes could be made at junctions to encourage more walking to school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

County Cllr Roz Smith, Headington and Quarry Division

City Cllr Ruth Wilkinson, Headington Ward

City Cllr Altaf-Khan, Headington Ward                                                    02/04/15

Oxford Transport Strategy

The County Council will decide  next Tuesday whether to release its draft Local Transport Plan 4 for public consultation. For those who would like to see the papers please click on this link and look for item 9

There has been a lot of interest in improving transport in Headington, and it came up as a significant issue in the responses to the neighbourhood plan issues and options consultation. Here is a brief guide to work so far.

The above papers are to get formal approval to consult on the Local Transport Plan 4. This is likely to start in February.

As part of LTP4 there is the emerging Oxford Transport Strategy (OTS). The focus of OTS is three areas: City Centre, North Oxford and Eastern Arc.

Headington is a part of the Eastern Arc Strategy and the Headington Transport Strategy baseline and consultation undertaken last year has fed into the strategy development. There is no longer a ‘Headington Transport Strategy’ per se.

OTS will be of interest to local residents as it sets out the county’s proposed strategy for the next 20 years and is more detailed in terms of bus routes, new P&R sites, cycle route proposals etc.

Access to Headington is a project looking at schemes that can be delivered to reduce congestion, and improve public transport and cycle access in particular.