Barton Park development Phase 1

As I reported in my previous post, there’s a presentation about the development of Barton Park Phase 1 in the Town Hall on Monday 11 May. I’ve tried to follow this development fairly closely, and there are several matters which I think might affect its success if they are not addressed sooner rather than later. I can’t go to the presentation but for those of you who can and do go, this article might give you some questions to ask.

Barton Park Phase 1

The success or failure of the Barton Park development as a whole, and whether or not it achieves the ‘exemplary’ status to which Grosvenor, the City, and Hill all say they aspire, will depend as much on matters external to Barton Park as to any within its boundaries. This article identifies some issues which to the best of my knowledge have not been addressed. If I’m wrong and some or all of them are in hand so much the better – I shall be pleased and relieved.
At the end of this analysis I have listed some questions which you might like to ask the developers if you go to the presentation at the Town Hall on Monday 11 May. Unfortunately I can’t be there, but if you find out anything please let me know!

Public transport connections 

As far as I am aware, nothing has yet been agreed with Oxford’s bus companies as to how and when they will serve the Phase 1 development. Apart from the restricted access junction with the A40 nothing has been made public on this. Informally, bus company executives have suggested initially extending the ‘Barton loop’ of the current No. 8 route. This is only practical if the whole of Barton Park’s main street is constructed as part of Phase 1 so that there is a physical road link between Barton and Barton Park. As far as I know this is not currently planned to happen.
Even if extending the Barton loop as part of Phase 1 were possible, it is unlikely to be an optimal solution. It is expected, or assumed, that a significant proportion of new residents will work at the hospitals, especially the JR, and at Oxford University’s Old Road Campus. The no. 8 route does not serve either of these destinations well. For those wanting to get to the City Centre, journey times will be unattractively long.
Access from Barton Park across the new A40 junction and into Northway will be restricted to buses, bicycles and pedestrians. It is therefore assumed that there will be a bus route using this junction. It is well established that people’s travel choices are set very soon after they start living in a new place, so it follows that for Barton Park to be setting an example of low car use, active modes of travel and use of public rather than private transport, at least one bus service across this junction and serving the destinations most users are likely to want to reach must be in place as soon as people start to move in.
I believe it is essential that this is discussed with the bus companies before the planning application is submitted so that firm proposals can be included in the developer’s travel plans.

Impact on Northway – buses, cycling, walking routes 

Following from the above, I am not aware that any ideas have been put forward for how buses, people on bicycles and people on foot will circulate once they arrive in Northway having crossed the A40. This is understandably a major concern for Northway residents, especially since the Town Green application was turned down.
The earlier planning documents show lines on maps indicating cycle and pedestrian routes from the new junction to, for example, the JR, other hospitals, Old Road Campus, Headington shops. I’m not aware that any work has been done to examine these routes, assess what needs to be done (and where the money’s coming from) to make them sufficiently attractive, convenient and safe to entice Barton Park residents out of their cars and onto active transport modes. This needs to be in hand now, not in a year’s time when people are about to move in. Expected routes for these various journeys need to be described, and the work needed to bring roads, cycle routes and walkways up to the necessary standards assessed, planned, and consulted upon.
These are of course matters for the County as Highway Authority. It would be helpful to know if the developers (Hill) or the LLP have talked to the County about these questions.

Links with Barton 

The existing community in Barton has been told that Barton and Barton Park will have strong links, both physical and social. This is said to be for the benefit of both existing and new communities. It has recently been announced, for example, that both Bartons will share a single medical centre based in an expansion of the existing one in Underhill Circus. It is intended that new shops in Barton Park will attract custom from Barton. The City Council hopes that creating Barton Park will bring a degree of regeneration to the Barton estate.
For this to happen, links rather than barriers need to be created between the two communities. This will not happen if the Phase 1 development appears to ‘turn its back’ on Barton, which will be the impression if the only way in and out of Barton Park for the first year or two is via the A40 junction. Ideally Barton Park’s main street needs from the outset to join up with Barton. Failing this, attractive, safe and convenient access for people on cycles and on foot needs to be created as part of Phase 1 to demonstrate to existing Barton residents they are welcome in Barton Park, and to open to them the alternative travel arrangements we discuss above.

Summary 

These issues can all be classified in one way or another as ‘connectivity’. They arise because of the fragmented nature of the planning and development processes, especially where transport and travel are concerned.
I share the aspirations for Barton Park to be an ‘exemplary’ new community. I know that much thought and study has gone into its conception and design. I believe that these issues need positive management and the involvement of stakeholder citizens and elected representatives rather than being left to chance or addressed as afterthoughts. They are too important for that.

Questions 

·       Will Phase 1 include building the spine road so that it runs all the way from the A40 to join up with the existing roads on the Barton estate?
·       Has there been any formal discussion with the County and the bus companies about how and when bus services to Barton Park will start?
·       What has been done to identify and designate cycle and pedestrian routes from Barton Park to important destinations and determine what needs to be done (and where the money’s coming from) to make them sufficiently attractive, convenient and safe?
·       What plans are there to keep residents in Northway particularly, and in Headington generally, involved and informed about progress on these issues?

Report Published

I have received a copy of the Consultants’ report on the Headington Transport Strategy. It is in two parts, which you can download from the links below. I haven’t had time to absorb it yet but first impressions are that it describes the present situation rather than setting out a strategy for dealing with the acknowledged problems. Indeed, the main report describes itself as a “Baseline Conditions Report”. There’s plenty of tables of data and quite a few maps: how up-to-date and reliable I can’t yet say.

As far as I know the County Council has not yet announced any public consultation on the report. I will post more on this when I can.

Download:
Baseline Conditions Report Jan 2014 (6.31Mb pdf)
Growth Pressures & Appendices Nov 2013 (672Kb pdf)

Transport Strategy – Friends of Old Headington response

The Friends of Old Headington have kindly agreed to me copying their response to the County’s consultation here. For other local organisations’ views see the other posts on the ‘Transport Strategy‘ page.

The Friends write:
The aim of the Friends of Old Headington is to retain Old Headington as a village, with special emphasis on preserving its lanes, walls, grass verges, and trees, and ensuring that new buildings and alterations are in keeping with the existing character of the village. This is a community project in which local residents work with the Oxford Preservation Trust and the City Council in their declared policy of preserving the village.

Here is what they submitted to the County Council:

The Friends of Old Headington would like to make the following comments with regard to the Headington Transport Development Strategy.

Background

The Old Headington Conservation Area Appraisal (July 2011) makes clear the vulnerability of the conservation area to traffic. The following is taken from p. 67:

“The village’s road network is not designed for the needs of modern transport and concerns have been expressed through the consultation process about the negative impact of traffic at peak times – noise, movement, appearance. Indeed, the threat of an increase in traffic to the character and appearance of the conservation area was identified in 77% of responses received to the consultation draft of the appraisal.”

The number of responses to the consultation draft of the Appraisal was unusually high, reflecting the degree of public concern about the effects of traffic (and particularly the
‘rat running’ variety) on the conservation area and on the quality of life of those who live there.

Observations and suggestions

1. Ensuring that traffic using the main arteries of London Road, Headley Way, and Marsh Lane flows freely at all times will be key to preventing rat running through the conservation area, reducing drivers’ desire (or need)  to cut through the narrow roads and lanes of Old Headington.

‘Rat running’ during rush-hours has adverse effects on the conservation area daily, and  (particularly in St Andrews Rd. and Old High Street) causes regular traffic jams since there are long stretches which become single-lane when cars are parked. Traffic taking shortcuts via these roads includes large commercial vehicles which increase the existing risk to cyclists. This is a problem likely to increase now that the Oxford cycle strategy has routed cyclists down St Andrew’s Road. The high kerbs mean that cyclists cannot take evasive action in an emergency.

2. Traffic-calming measures should be considered for the most vulnerable streets in the conservation area, for example in Old High Street, where a substantial single-lane stretch between the Black Boy and the corner of North Place encourages drivers to accelerate hard before someone comes the other way. This kind of scenario is a prime cause of the frequent flouting of the 20 mph limit in this and other parts of Headington.

Improving traffic flow on those main roads surrounding this part of Headington, together with the adoption of such traffic calming measures as would be appropriate in the context of the conservation area could achieve a significant improvement in the quality of life, safety and well-being of the community as well as a reduction in the deterioration of the physical environment (road surfaces, kerbs, and listed buildings).

Residential streets both inside and outside the Old Headington conservation area could benefit considerably from these two measures alone.

3. The barrier allowing buses access to the John Radcliffe Hospital via Osler Rd must only be opened for permitted vehicles. When this is broken, many vehicles access the lower JR car parks through Old Headington and Osler Rd. generating a marked increase in traffic. The use of buses in small residential streets should be reconsidered, as should the size of vehicles allowed to use (or try to use) the narrower roads in this part of Headington. There is no grid-pattern here, but narrow pavements and roads, sharp bends, and houses fronting traffic just a few feet away.

4. Planning permission should only be given for new developments in Headington which are designated as car free. Traffic is already at such a level that even small increases in traffic will place intolerable pressure on the local road network. Developers should as a matter of course be required to make substantial contributions to support the local infrastructure – including traffic-calming measures, as has happened elsewhere in Oxford, e.g. in Jack Straw’s Lane – as a condition of planning permission being granted.

5. There should be no further increase in parking spaces at any of Headington’s disproportionately large number of hospital and University sites. The expansion of these facilities, and the transfer of the Radcliffe Infirmary to the area has already resulted in an increase in staff traffic, outpatient and visitor traffic that is unsustainable in a residential area.

6. Alternatives need to be considered and encouraged: more effective campaigns to persuade people to cycle, supported by the implementation of measures that force motorists to slow down to a safe speed, and by the creation and maintenance of properly designed and safe cycle tracks, separated from car lanes wherever this is feasible, should be included in the Transport Strategy. Car-sharing schemes should be publicized and the benefits made clear. Design and maintenance are both significant: poor repair is the cause of minor accidents, as well as preventing people adopting a healthier mode of transport.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate; we hope that there will be further opportunities for consultation and community response as the transport strategy for Headington is developed.

Friends of Old Headington, 10th October 2013.