Plan put forward for park-and-ride at Eynsham

Witney Gazette: Hugh Jaeger Hugh Jaeger

TRAFFIC campaigners have warned plans for a park-and-ride at Eynsham will make congestion on the A40 worse.

Oxfordshire County Council has put forward the plans in connection with the proposed Northern Gateway development near Wolvercote in Oxford.

Hugh Jaeger of Bus Users UK’s Oxford group said: “We value park-and-ride as a way to reduce city congestion. But this can increase car traffic on roads near park-and-ride sites close to the ring road.

“The county council has just finished consulting on subsidised bus services in West Oxfordshire. It proposes withdrawing up to seven routes and reducing up to 17 others.

“An Eynsham park-and-ride combined with local bus cuts could attract commuters from much of West Oxfordshire, but significantly increase A40 traffic between Eynsham and Burford.”

The Northern Gateway development would involve building between 200 and 500 homes on land between Wolvercote and the A34 as well as space for 3,000 jobs.

But the proposal has raised concerns about the impact on the already-congested A40 between Oxford and Witney – with officials from Oxford City Council saying it can only go ahead after “very serious transport improvements”.

And city councillor Colin Cook, executive board member for city development, gave these proposal his support.

He said: “Clearly anything that moves people away from their own car on to public transport is a good thing.

“Equally clearly the devil will be in the detail when it comes to providing appropriate park-and-ride provision at Eynsham. So qualified support – provided it’s possible to get suitable arrangements in place for this facility at Eynsham.”

County councillor for Summertown and Wolvercote Jean Fooks said: “There is severe congestion at the Wolvercote roundabout daily and this leads to poor air quality as well as delay. Reducing the traffic levels has to be a key objective of any measures to improve the area.

“Having a park-and-ride at Eynsham would reduce the number of cars considerably, which has to be a good thing.”

Oxford’s park-and-ride system – which already has five car parks – is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year and the city was one of the first to experiment with the concept.

County council spokesman Martin Crabtree said: “A park-and-ride west of Oxford on the A40 could form part of the transport strategy for Northern Gateway. No preferred location for a site has been selected.

“One of the possible locations (Eynsham) was referenced at the meeting last week as the concept has previously been included in various documents including earlier Local Transport Plans.

“This will be looked at alongside other potential locations along the A40 corridor as part of the Northern Gateway transport work.”

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:29am Fri 29 Nov 13

fishstew says...

There are 2 Park and rides near Wovercote, Pear Tree and Water Eaton do they really need a 3rd one.
There are 2 Park and rides near Wovercote, Pear Tree and Water Eaton do they really need a 3rd one. fishstew

8:17am Fri 29 Nov 13

BigAlBiker says...

The A40 towards Oxford from Witney is solid from 7.15am every day, do the council really think a park and ride is going to make any difference???

No its not, well not until it's two lanes each way giving the thousands of cars an easier way in and out.
The A40 towards Oxford from Witney is solid from 7.15am every day, do the council really think a park and ride is going to make any difference??? No its not, well not until it's two lanes each way giving the thousands of cars an easier way in and out. BigAlBiker

11:14am Fri 29 Nov 13

Hugh Jaeger says...

The A40's problem is limited capacity at the junctions, not the number of lanes. Dualling it between Wolvercote and Witney would only attract more cars to already overloaded junctions. Improving the junctions would help short-term, but then would attract more traffic and put the A40 back to square one. The County Council would have spent several £million of our taxes for very little gain.

Lots of people use the S1 & S2 buses but at peak times they get stuck in traffic. And people in places west of Witney have little or no bus service to Oxford, so they drive all the way.

Getting enough people onto buses would cut car numbers and get traffic moving. Good direct buses from west of Witney either to Oxford or at least to meet the S1 & S2 would enable people to leave the car at home. Better than spending £3 million on a P&R at Eynsham!

Instead the County Council plans to reduce buses from places including Aston, Bampton, Bladon, Clanfield, Ducklington, Freeland, Hanborough, North Leigh, Northmoor, Standlake, Stanton Harcourt and Sutton. That would mean more cars on the A40, A4095 and B-roads to Botley, and more gridlock on Botley Rd and Woodstock Rd.
http://www.oxfordpro
spect.co.uk/CAMPAIGN
ERS-CRITICISE-EYNSHA
M-PARK-&-RIDE-AS-NOR
THERN-GATEWAY-GREENW
ASH.html
The A40's problem is limited capacity at the junctions, not the number of lanes. Dualling it between Wolvercote and Witney would only attract more cars to already overloaded junctions. Improving the junctions would help short-term, but then would attract more traffic and put the A40 back to square one. The County Council would have spent several £million of our taxes for very little gain. Lots of people use the S1 & S2 buses but at peak times they get stuck in traffic. And people in places west of Witney have little or no bus service to Oxford, so they drive all the way. Getting enough people onto buses would cut car numbers and get traffic moving. Good direct buses from west of Witney either to Oxford or at least to meet the S1 & S2 would enable people to leave the car at home. Better than spending £3 million on a P&R at Eynsham! Instead the County Council plans to reduce buses from places including Aston, Bampton, Bladon, Clanfield, Ducklington, Freeland, Hanborough, North Leigh, Northmoor, Standlake, Stanton Harcourt and Sutton. That would mean more cars on the A40, A4095 and B-roads to Botley, and more gridlock on Botley Rd and Woodstock Rd. http://www.oxfordpro spect.co.uk/CAMPAIGN ERS-CRITICISE-EYNSHA M-PARK-&-RIDE-AS-NOR THERN-GATEWAY-GREENW ASH.html Hugh Jaeger

2:44pm Fri 29 Nov 13

Patrick, Devon says...

Eynsham would be a good location for a light rail terminal, including car park, with buses from Witney and beyond feeding into it. That would be joined up integrated transport, as they do on the continent. to great effect.
Eynsham would be a good location for a light rail terminal, including car park, with buses from Witney and beyond feeding into it. That would be joined up integrated transport, as they do on the continent. to great effect. Patrick, Devon

4:06pm Fri 29 Nov 13

Hugh Jaeger says...

Better than a terminal, Eynsham could be an intermediate stop on an Oxford–Witney light rail line, with potential to extend to Carterton. Stagecoach Oxfordshire says that by cutting traffic on the A40 and on the B roads to Botley, light rail could make buses S1 and S2 quicker and more reliable.

It takes several years to raise enough money and political support for a tramway, and there's always the risk of political defeat. But the A40 between Wolvercote and Witney has long been the most congested road in Oxfordshire. Light rail would be the best solution.

Before then, much could be gained by the County Council scrapping its plan to cut local buses in West Oxon and agreeing to increase them instead. This would make them "feeder routes" to the S1, S2 and stations on the Cotswold Line.

Burford and the Wychwoods have an irregular bus every 90–105 minutes to Witney. Make it hourly instead to connect with the S1 and S2. If possible, add a direct Wychwoods–Leafield
–Witney bus as well.

There's a Witney–Woodstock bus past Hanborough rail station, but its hourly timetable doesn't fit the train times. Doubling it to half-hourly would enable people from Witney (and Woodstock) to catch the train without struggling up Botley Road by bus or car to reach Oxford station.

Oxfordshire County Council used to be good at developing bus routes by subsidy and investment so that they became self-financing and the council could leave the operators to run them without subsidy. That's how the S3 became the commercial success it is now.

Doing the same for other West Oxfordshire routes would increase passengers and cover the temporary cost of subsidising the extra buses to get them started. Hence cutting congestion with more buses would pay for itself.
Better than a terminal, Eynsham could be an intermediate stop on an Oxford–Witney light rail line, with potential to extend to Carterton. Stagecoach Oxfordshire says that by cutting traffic on the A40 and on the B roads to Botley, light rail could make buses S1 and S2 quicker and more reliable. It takes several years to raise enough money and political support for a tramway, and there's always the risk of political defeat. But the A40 between Wolvercote and Witney has long been the most congested road in Oxfordshire. Light rail would be the best solution. Before then, much could be gained by the County Council scrapping its plan to cut local buses in West Oxon and agreeing to increase them instead. This would make them "feeder routes" to the S1, S2 and stations on the Cotswold Line. Burford and the Wychwoods have an irregular bus every 90–105 minutes to Witney. Make it hourly instead to connect with the S1 and S2. If possible, add a direct Wychwoods–Leafield –Witney bus as well. There's a Witney–Woodstock bus past Hanborough rail station, but its hourly timetable doesn't fit the train times. Doubling it to half-hourly would enable people from Witney (and Woodstock) to catch the train without struggling up Botley Road by bus or car to reach Oxford station. Oxfordshire County Council used to be good at developing bus routes by subsidy and investment so that they became self-financing and the council could leave the operators to run them without subsidy. That's how the S3 became the commercial success it is now. Doing the same for other West Oxfordshire routes would increase passengers and cover the temporary cost of subsidising the extra buses to get them started. Hence cutting congestion with more buses would pay for itself. Hugh Jaeger

5:17pm Fri 29 Nov 13

Andrew:Oxford says...

Whilst a rail link between Carterton/Witney and Oxford would be fantastice and improve the lives of tens of thousands of people, cut congestion and traffic noise on the A34, A40 and in central Oxford as well as improving air quality...

Sadly, we all know it will never happen.

Local county councillors are only capable of working on the "quick wins" that they can use as evidence in their next local election pamphlets. Something that won't happen for 6-10 years just isn't in their sights.

Then there is the issue of the notorious CPRE who are bound to "fear" the prospect of an electrified rail route passing through Oxfordshire's countryside - they haven't exactly welcomed the planned dedicated passenger route between London & Birmingham.

I'm just waiting on the howls of anguish and hand-wringing angst over the electrification of the route alongside Port Meadow. (Although some of that will be hidden by the student accommodation that was built on a former brownfield site.)
Whilst a rail link between Carterton/Witney and Oxford would be fantastice and improve the lives of tens of thousands of people, cut congestion and traffic noise on the A34, A40 and in central Oxford as well as improving air quality... Sadly, we all know it will never happen. Local county councillors are only capable of working on the "quick wins" that they can use as evidence in their next local election pamphlets. Something that won't happen for 6-10 years just isn't in their sights. Then there is the issue of the notorious CPRE who are bound to "fear" the prospect of an electrified rail route passing through Oxfordshire's countryside - they haven't exactly welcomed the planned dedicated passenger route between London & Birmingham. I'm just waiting on the howls of anguish and hand-wringing angst over the electrification of the route alongside Port Meadow. (Although some of that will be hidden by the student accommodation that was built on a former brownfield site.) Andrew:Oxford

5:59pm Fri 29 Nov 13

Hugh Jaeger says...

CPRE is very good for our environment, except that it opposes most wind farms. CPRE supports decarbonising rail travel: there is no evidence to claim it would oppose electrifying Southampton–Midlan
ds diesel main line.

By "planned dedicated passenger route between London & Birmingham" do you mean HS2? CPRE is a signatory to the Right Lines Charter, which agrees that Britain needs a new north–south main line but explains why HS2 is the wrong line at the wrong price.

HS2 is not an integrated part of a coherent national transport strategy. Route options were prematurely and deliberately excluded to ensure its preliminary studies reached the wrong answer. Public consultation was essentially post-hoc.

Because the wrong route has been chosen and the Chilterns AONB is so sensitive, 22.5 miles would be in tunnel, pushing HS2's cost and "embedded carbon" footprint even higher. Phase 1 won't open until 2026: too late to mitigate climate change, or peak oil.

We are not going to agree on HS2, but this thread is about decongesting roads in West Oxfordshire. For that, more and better bus routes are the immediate option. After that, reopening the Witney Railway as a light rail route would add more capacity at an even lower carbon footprint.

Manchester and Nottingham local politicians are hugely expanding their tram networks. Oxfordshire is free to elect councillors that would do the same.
http://rightlines.or
g.uk/
CPRE is very good for our environment, except that it opposes most wind farms. CPRE supports decarbonising rail travel: there is no evidence to claim it would oppose electrifying Southampton–Midlan ds diesel main line. By "planned dedicated passenger route between London & Birmingham" do you mean HS2? CPRE is a signatory to the Right Lines Charter, which agrees that Britain needs a new north–south main line but explains why HS2 is the wrong line at the wrong price. HS2 is not an integrated part of a coherent national transport strategy. Route options were prematurely and deliberately excluded to ensure its preliminary studies reached the wrong answer. Public consultation was essentially post-hoc. Because the wrong route has been chosen and the Chilterns AONB is so sensitive, 22.5 miles would be in tunnel, pushing HS2's cost and "embedded carbon" footprint even higher. Phase 1 won't open until 2026: too late to mitigate climate change, or peak oil. We are not going to agree on HS2, but this thread is about decongesting roads in West Oxfordshire. For that, more and better bus routes are the immediate option. After that, reopening the Witney Railway as a light rail route would add more capacity at an even lower carbon footprint. Manchester and Nottingham local politicians are hugely expanding their tram networks. Oxfordshire is free to elect councillors that would do the same. http://rightlines.or g.uk/ Hugh Jaeger

7:05pm Fri 29 Nov 13

Patrick, Devon says...

Spending some money on local transport links makes much more sense than HS2. A recent report by Oxon CC does in fact advocate a rapid transit system to for the Oxford area.

If the Government wants Oxford to grow its economy then it will need to make provision for transport infrastructure. A scheme that takes commuter traffic off the trunk roads would benefit the national economy as well. The A40 cant cope now - expansion at Carterton, Witney, the Wolvercote gateway and West Barton will make matters far worse.
Spending some money on local transport links makes much more sense than HS2. A recent report by Oxon CC does in fact advocate a rapid transit system to for the Oxford area. If the Government wants Oxford to grow its economy then it will need to make provision for transport infrastructure. A scheme that takes commuter traffic off the trunk roads would benefit the national economy as well. The A40 cant cope now - expansion at Carterton, Witney, the Wolvercote gateway and West Barton will make matters far worse. Patrick, Devon

2:36pm Sat 30 Nov 13

Citizen Sunday says...

Hugh, wind farms are an industrial installation spread over a wide area. Regardless of how effective or 'green' we like to think they are, a 'wind farm' is, nevertheless, an industrial 'stamp of man'- for 'man'- dominating any environment that surrounds it.

As *most* future wind farms proposed to be built in the UK seek to 'stamp mans mark' upon the last few remaining 'unmolested' natural environments we have in this country (Scotland's future 'independence' not withstanding) then, Mr Jaeger, opposing *most* proposed wind farms is PRO environment.

Light rail for Oxfordshire would be fantastic though.
Hugh, wind farms are an industrial installation spread over a wide area. Regardless of how effective or 'green' we like to think they are, a 'wind farm' is, nevertheless, an industrial 'stamp of man'- for 'man'- dominating any environment that surrounds it. As *most* future wind farms proposed to be built in the UK seek to 'stamp mans mark' upon the last few remaining 'unmolested' natural environments we have in this country (Scotland's future 'independence' not withstanding) then, Mr Jaeger, opposing *most* proposed wind farms is PRO environment. Light rail for Oxfordshire would be fantastic though. Citizen Sunday

12:51pm Sun 1 Dec 13

Hugh Jaeger says...

What "unmolested" environments? Man has changed almost every square mile of rural Britain for millennia. Our ancestors deforested and every upland, enclosed every lowland and tried to drain every wetland. The amount of surviving virgin woodland is tiny: most of what is imagined to be virgin is in fact ancient regrowth on formerly cleared land, and despite centuries of growth is still less biodiverse then genuine virgin woodland.

Nor is there any "unmolested" view. Our ancestors have disrupted every skyline with military engineering since the Iron Age and with windmills since the Middle Ages. Whether wind turbines "molest" views is purely subjective. Many people enjoy their clean lines as elegant, as well as valuing the megawatts of zero-carbon energy that they supply.

Views matter aesthetically, but climate change, pollution and peak oil are matters of survival. Opposing clean, renewable energy to save a view must be the exception rather than the rule. Opposing most wind farms is blatantly anti-environment.

This thread, however, is about reducing road congestion and emissions to improve the economy and environment of West Oxfordshire. So far, Citizen Sunday, you have contributed no insight or analysis to that.
What "unmolested" environments? Man has changed almost every square mile of rural Britain for millennia. Our ancestors deforested and every upland, enclosed every lowland and tried to drain every wetland. The amount of surviving virgin woodland is tiny: most of what is imagined to be virgin is in fact ancient regrowth on formerly cleared land, and despite centuries of growth is still less biodiverse then genuine virgin woodland. Nor is there any "unmolested" view. Our ancestors have disrupted every skyline with military engineering since the Iron Age and with windmills since the Middle Ages. Whether wind turbines "molest" views is purely subjective. Many people enjoy their clean lines as elegant, as well as valuing the megawatts of zero-carbon energy that they supply. Views matter aesthetically, but climate change, pollution and peak oil are matters of survival. Opposing clean, renewable energy to save a view must be the exception rather than the rule. Opposing most wind farms is blatantly anti-environment. This thread, however, is about reducing road congestion and emissions to improve the economy and environment of West Oxfordshire. So far, Citizen Sunday, you have contributed no insight or analysis to that. Hugh Jaeger

5:05pm Sun 1 Dec 13

Citizen Sunday says...

Hugh Jaeger wrote:
What "unmolested" environments? Man has changed almost every square mile of rural Britain for millennia. Our ancestors deforested and every upland, enclosed every lowland and tried to drain every wetland. The amount of surviving virgin woodland is tiny: most of what is imagined to be virgin is in fact ancient regrowth on formerly cleared land, and despite centuries of growth is still less biodiverse then genuine virgin woodland.

Nor is there any "unmolested" view. Our ancestors have disrupted every skyline with military engineering since the Iron Age and with windmills since the Middle Ages. Whether wind turbines "molest" views is purely subjective. Many people enjoy their clean lines as elegant, as well as valuing the megawatts of zero-carbon energy that they supply.

Views matter aesthetically, but climate change, pollution and peak oil are matters of survival. Opposing clean, renewable energy to save a view must be the exception rather than the rule. Opposing most wind farms is blatantly anti-environment.

This thread, however, is about reducing road congestion and emissions to improve the economy and environment of West Oxfordshire. So far, Citizen Sunday, you have contributed no insight or analysis to that.
Survival for what? To live on a planet reconfigured to serving our energy requirements?

I'm not talking about views being molested per se. I'm talking about the few environments belonging to *nature* itself being molested- there is a difference.

Yes, most 'virgin' environments in Britain are no longer truly 'virginal'. But given the framework within which we are left with?

Contrary to popular misconception, wind farms can be built anywhere in this country. There is no need to build them in or around areas *least* affected by man.
Those supporting ALL wind farms belong to the same mindset as the very same ancestors of ours unequivocally "deforested and every upland, enclosed every lowland and tried to drain every wetland."

To say how 'pro-environment' the wind farm industry truly is is still not objectively or unanimously concluded. To say "opposing most wind farms is *blatantly* anti-environment" is as subjective as wind turbines "molesting" views.

As for contributing an insight toward road congestion across West Oxfordshire? No need... You pretty much covered it.
[quote][p][bold]Hugh Jaeger[/bold] wrote: What "unmolested" environments? Man has changed almost every square mile of rural Britain for millennia. Our ancestors deforested and every upland, enclosed every lowland and tried to drain every wetland. The amount of surviving virgin woodland is tiny: most of what is imagined to be virgin is in fact ancient regrowth on formerly cleared land, and despite centuries of growth is still less biodiverse then genuine virgin woodland. Nor is there any "unmolested" view. Our ancestors have disrupted every skyline with military engineering since the Iron Age and with windmills since the Middle Ages. Whether wind turbines "molest" views is purely subjective. Many people enjoy their clean lines as elegant, as well as valuing the megawatts of zero-carbon energy that they supply. Views matter aesthetically, but climate change, pollution and peak oil are matters of survival. Opposing clean, renewable energy to save a view must be the exception rather than the rule. Opposing most wind farms is blatantly anti-environment. This thread, however, is about reducing road congestion and emissions to improve the economy and environment of West Oxfordshire. So far, Citizen Sunday, you have contributed no insight or analysis to that.[/p][/quote]Survival for what? To live on a planet reconfigured to serving our energy requirements? I'm not talking about views being molested per se. I'm talking about the few environments belonging to *nature* itself being molested- there is a difference. Yes, most 'virgin' environments in Britain are no longer truly 'virginal'. But given the framework within which we are left with? Contrary to popular misconception, wind farms can be built anywhere in this country. There is no need to build them in or around areas *least* affected by man. Those supporting ALL wind farms belong to the same mindset as the very same ancestors of ours unequivocally "deforested and every upland, enclosed every lowland and tried to drain every wetland." To say how 'pro-environment' the wind farm industry truly is is still not objectively or unanimously concluded. To say "opposing most wind farms is *blatantly* anti-environment" is as subjective as wind turbines "molesting" views. As for contributing an insight toward road congestion across West Oxfordshire? No need... You pretty much covered it. Citizen Sunday

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree