Oxfordshire resident and Thames Tap consultant Hugh Blaza has been following the story of the city’s traffic filters for many years. And, when push came to shove on Tuesday as the county council approved them, he was one of the keenest observers. He argues that there might be a better way.
Anybody who has sat in a traffic jam in Oxford, fuming (in every sense), must have thought there should be a better way.
Anybody who has been on a bus, trying to get to a meeting or appointment on time, must have wondered why their journey is taking so much longer than scheduled.
And the reason, of course, is very straightforward. The combination of the independence we enjoy through owning and driving our cars and the inherent nature of Oxford’s arterial roads and its mediaeval streets means the city is simply incapable of accommodating a moving flow of traffic when most people are wanting to make their journeys. Congestion reigns. Pollution fills the air.
The first solution devised to address the issue was the closure, many years ago, of the High Street to most traffic, ignoring which would result in a hefty fine.
More recently, the swingeing increases in on-street parking tariffs have either deterred people from coming into the city or driven them to risk paying for one hour instead of two and hoping the traffic warden wouldn’t come by at the wrong time.
Now, as widely reported, the county council has decided on the nuclear option. Following the November 29 vote, an experiment will shortly be implemented to discourage, again on pain of a hefty fine for disobedience, almost all traffic from travelling into and through the city centre, essentially by closing off most of the main routes in.
The desired outcome is, according to the council, to ‘reduce traffic, make bus journeys faster and make walking and cycling safer’.
For completeness, I should mention the already introduced closure to through traffic of many side streets, joining the main roads into and out of the city by LTNs (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods).
So how has all of this been received? With open arms at the prospect of a car-free city centre? With the anticipated pleasure of hopping onto a comprehensive, efficient bus service to enable us to get from A to B? With joy at the prospect of breathing clean, fresh air as we walk and cycle around the city centre?
Not a bit of it.
The bollards installed to enforce the LTNs have been extensively vandalised. Traffic congestion in the roads we are allowed to pass along has increased significantly. The traffic filters proposal gathered almost no support from those responding to the council’s initial public consultation.
Business groups are so incensed, not only at the damaging effect they anticipate the measures will have on their businesses but also at what they say is the failure by the council to procure essential impact assessments, that they have requested a judicial review to determine whether the decision is unlawful and should be set aside.
Opinions are like noses, they say: everybody has one. So, for what it’s worth, here’s mine. I live in a village, six miles from the city centre. Like many, I enjoy coming into Oxford, which I do at least weekly, albeit rarely during the rush hour.
Unless there are road works, I usually get in and out without any significant delay. I have resigned myself to the increased cost of parking and it’s rare that I can’t find a space to do so, leaving me a brief walk from my car to the shops and other places I want to visit.
I collect food, wine, and other items from shops en route, enjoying the freedom and flexibility (not to mention carrying capacity) which only a car can provide.
But I detest the traffic jams (see above). So, here’s an idea. Outside peak times, why not allow the freedom of access to and from the city. It works now so why shouldn’t it continue to do so?
During peak hours, either stop private vehicles from entering the city or charge them a significant amount for doing so. Provide an affordable public transport solution from the ring road throughout the day, with increased services at peak times.
It seems so simple. I guess I must be missing something. Do please tell me what!
© Thames Tap (powered by ukpropertyforums.com).
Sign up to receive your free weekly Thames Tap journal here.
Totally agree. I also live some miles outside and avoid rush hour if I need to go in. Despite it being the county town and a key centre of the county’s economic activity most people have to commute because Oxford itself is way too expensive for most people to live in. Therefore most of those generating economic prosperity for the city are denied a vote whether or not they voiced a valid opinion.
The consultation was clearly a nonsultation box ticking exercise that was always going to be ignored. I sometimes wonder whether it’s about air quality, the environment or the fact that the councillors are cajoled into this by a group of them who are obsessive about cycling and are determined to keep cars out of Oxford for their own ends. They ignore the needs of those with mobility issues not severe enough for exemption, the hassle for families etc. There is one able-bodied cyclist councillor who has said some quite unbelievable ableist things online.
There is a website that shows parking availability in Oxford and there is a reason that Westgate is always full and the Park & Rides are half(or more) empty.
I’m not convinced air quality improves if fossil fuel cars are forced to queue. What is the justification for banning electric vehicles? Certainly not air quality.
Whether or not buses will be able to get in and out quicker will depend on how queued the roads without a bus lane are – as it does now.
So many options available and they choose the dumbest because it suits their personal lifestyles and preferences.
…as an Oxford resident, this feels a little like the smoking ban in pubs, a lot of high-minded opposition, but ultimately better than not for anyone in the pub. The process of getting there generates a lot of vitriol, but 5 years / 10 years on…
My personal lifestyles and preferences choice has been to accept living in a smaller house in Oxford rather than a bigger quieter one in the shires. I can be honest about that.
Having tried it for years, I’ve never had an insurmountable problem getting on a bus, even with 3 children under 3 (at a cost of a £9 family ticket), but perhaps feel the need to object to others with a bigger house moaning about it being more expensive to choose to emit NO2 outside our smaller house.
In a global trend of urbanisation, we are incredibly lucky that Oxford works as the 15 minute city concept; should we be looking at a smarter greenbelt policy that actively releases enough value to create the next district centre close to genuine transport nodes & new schools to support it?
The battle will be who’s view of the fields gets blighted by new well insulated, community-rich housing.
(Oh yes, and cycling – I met a Dutch couple on holiday this year, and we got talking on bikes… 1 in 4 journeys in The Netherlands by bike; one in 50 in the UK…their GDP per capita c.$57k vs c.$44k in the UK. How much better would their GDP get if they all started using cars? After all, it rains more and is colder in the Netherlands. And, if I had to guess as to whether Dutch society was more ableist and less community minded than the UK……)
Hugh, re. your closing comments…..
“During peak hours, either stop private vehicles from entering the city or charge them a significant amount for doing so. Provide an affordable public transport solution from the ring road throughout the day, with increased services at peak times.
It seems so simple. I guess I must be missing something. Do please tell me what!”
……you are 100% correct!
The answer would be a simple, peak time congestion charge to operate Monday to Friday and at peak hours only. On several occasions and in written consultation responses, I have proposed this as the simple, sensible solution. My engagement includes Cllr. Gant, the County’s Cabinet Member for Highways Management, who acknowledges the well-argued case when he sees one. Therefore the question is, why is a sensible congestion charge not policy as opposed to the week-long kettling of residents? Residents and visitors who are afraid of incurring, or who are unable to pay, £70 fines for visiting elderly relatives, dropping off patients for medical appointments, buying Christmas trees, dropping off and collecting students etc, etc.
Therefore, a Thames Tap interview with Cllr, Gant would be interesting!
A little concerned that congestion charging is essentially a regressive tax. Those who can pay, will.
The proposed system may do less to harm NHS recruitment I suspect as hospital employees (or lecturers/teachers) can’t work flexi-time (given the commentary about exorbitant house prices in Oxford and the knowledge that just under half the city’s employment is education/health sector).
I embrace Oxford’s willingness to use public transport; I joke with friends that the Oxford Tube is the only coach service in the country where it’s even-money odds that someone on board is wearing a tweed jacket.