Central Oxford Travel Plan 2022
Bike Safe’s response to the public consultation
September 2022
General Comments
1. The Central Oxford Travel Plan (COTP) has bold anticipated outcomes which will mean dramatic changes in the way people in Oxfordshire travel. Bike Safe supports these outcomes, though the last of them - An inclusive transport network that improves accessibility for all of our residents – is arguably too vague and aspirational to be meaningful. It may also not be achievable. It might be better to be deleted.
2. We would also argue that a travel hierarchy is not an outcome in its own right; instead, it is best seen as a guiding principle and a resource allocation tool so as to ensure that scarce funding goes to the Council’s top transport plan priorities.
Outcomes
3. Bike Safe strongly supports the COTP’s plans for:
a. the use of a travel user hierarchy methodology
b. the adoption of vision zero to eliminate fatalities and reduce accidents
c. the changes proposed to improve public transport especially the introduction of electric buses and the expansion of the rail network
d. the plans to encourage more active travel by both cycle, walking and e-scooters (provided the latter are legal and speed-controlled)
e. the introduction of a working place car parking levy
f. the introduction and expansion of controlled parking zones
g. the phased introduction of traffic filters
4. If we have understood the plans correctly we believe there is a risk that there will be vociferous and organised opposition to a number of the proposals. This could significantly weaken the coherence and effectiveness of the Plan. This would be deeply regrettable and it will be important to focus on the key strategic objective reducing the number and frequency of car journeys into Oxford and replacing those journeys with ones by public transport or active travel.
5. To achieve this key objective, it is clear that a combination of interventions will be needed. There is no single magic bullet for such fundamental changes to long-established travel patterns. Some of these interventions will be restrictive and will be seen as limiting and preventing what was previously possible; other changes will be positive and encouraging of change. In Bike Safe’s view, OCC has not yet achieved the right balance between these two.
Sequencing the changes
6. The plan includes a series of restrictive or punitive measures such as traffic filters, parking restrictions and additional charges. It also includes lots of positives – such as new railway stations and routes, investment in walking and cycling infrastructure and electric buses to reduce pollution. Bike Safe is concerned that the current draft of the Plan places early and greater emphasis on measures that are likely to been as punitive and restrictive. We would encourage more emphasis on the positives or those ideas that are likely to have minimal impact on the general population, such as the working place parking levy.
7. With this suggestion in mind, we strongly recommend early and significant investment in cycling and walking infrastructure as well as smaller scale initiatives to focus on local ‘hot spot’ issues such as restrictions in the vicinity of schools.
Spending on Cycling and Walking
8. Historically, OCC has spent very little on the infrastructure necessary for a city that prides itself on its large number of cyclists. That number will only grow significantly in the future, especially if the broad direction of travel of the COTP is followed and housing developments proceed as planned. The Gilligan Report for the National Infrastructure Commission referred to cycling and walking spending being less than 2% of capital spend. Even if those figures are challenged, they give us a clear order of magnitude and it is abundantly clear that the COTP will not achieve its ambitious aims on increasing cycling and walking unless much more money is spent on the infrastructure necessary to build a network that meets prevailing design standards.
9. Bike Safe recommends that the COTP includes within it an explicit commitment to spend a specified percentage of the total county transport budget on cycling and walking. We suggest a commitment of between 10-15% of the transport budget be designated for cycling and walking. This level of spend may seem a lot but it is consistent with plans for future journeys by active travel as well as recognising the historical neglect of active travel infrastructure and facilities and education Unless there is a clear commitment to increased spending on cycling and walking, with annual reviews to monitor and publicly report on progress, history tells us that the commitments in the COTP will not be honoured.
10. Bike Safe is concerned that there may be a conflict between the commitment to electric vehicles and charging points and the commitment to active travel. In terms of budget allocations, we urge that priority be given to expanding and improving active travel infrastructure, rather than more infrastructure for private vehicle use.
The need to be more imaginative and comprehensive to increase bus usage
11. Reducing the number of car journeys into or around Oxford will be the key measure of success. This will also make cycling and walking more attractive and reduce the perceived risks of cycling. To cut the number of vehicle movements the COTP relies to a great extent on increased usage of buses. We are not convinced that the speed and scale of the switch to public transport will be achieved – unless more incentives are offered. The COTP could be more radical in encouraging increased bus usage and needs to learn from the experience of other cities.
12. As it stands, the COTP says nothing about the one issue that is most important – fares. Yet, learning from elsewhere, it is clear that fare structures and fare levels play the most critical role in growing passenger numbers. One option would be to extend free travel for, say, Oxfordshire residents who are under 21; or to introduce flat fares with each journey charged the same amount. This would increase the speed and efficiency of getting on buses and reduce bus standing time.
13. We do not have the expertise to recommend a specific option, but there are examples of other cities that Oxford can learn from. Our main point is not to recommend a specific fare structure, but to emphasise our concern that modal shift on the scale that is required will not happen unless the COTP includes significant financial incentives to increase bus passenger numbers.
The Workplace Parking Levy
14. The Workplace Parking Levy is a sensible and modest proposal that has the double benefit of discouraging commuting to work at the same time as generating income for other transport related expenditure. Bike Safe believes that this levy should be introduced at an early stage of the Plan so that it generates income for other aspects of plan implementation.
15. The current floor for liability to the levy is set at 11 parking places. We would question this number and would have thought that it could be reduced to 6-7 places with tiers of charges depending on the number of places, so a company with say only 10 places would pay proportionately less than a company with say 75 or 100 places. This is equitable because of the impact on traffic levels.
Bike Safe
14 September 2022