All posts in the topic Headington/London Road improvements
Summary
- There are 42 posts — by 17 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by gpsmith at Feb 23 11:35 UTC
I am disappointed that so many cycle lanes are now back on the pavements of the Headington/London Road. A unique opportunity to do something sensible to segregate pedestrians and cyclists has been missed. There is one small mercy: the pavement cycle lane going from central Headington to Brookes has reverted to being one-way. But the dangerous situation at the Headley Way junction is just the same as before: cyclists are invited to go straight under a bus (see uploaded photograph). (Will the roadworks ever finish? It’s almost mid-June now, but if you go to http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/londonroad/ and click on “What are we doing?” the county council still claims that the work will finish in the middle of last month. That page, however, is dated April Fools. Day….)
The following file was added to this topic:
I'm also a little suspicious that they seem to have no obvious
intention of putting any bus shelters on the city-bound side of the
road between the Gipsy Lane campus and the top of the hill. Can
anyone recall if losing these was part of the plan?
There have been times at which it has only been possible to notice
progress if using a geological clock. And I notice already that the
very light coloured paving is very easily marked and dirtied by almost
anything - is there a plan to keep the pavements washed? They are
already getting pretty grim in places.
You are having a larf.
When the pavement was done just over a year ago on the Headington to Green Road
roundabout stretch, there were dips created so when it rains you have to walk
around large puddles, including hilariously one under a bus shelter. And when
the road was surfaced not all the top dressing was bound in so there is a mass
of grit on the footpath now, to the detriment of cyclists and pedestrians. The
surface quality is already poor after only a short time.
Basically there was no evidence of quality control there, it may be different
on the more prestigous stretch between Headington-Headington Hill.
All
I very much doubt bus shelters will disappear on a permanent basis. From the
County's point of view, the London Rd corridor is a Premium Route, and as such
should have a high standard of infrastructure. From the Adshel's point of view
this is a highly trafficked area - by vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians - so
advertising potential is high.
As for the cycle lane ending, there is a 'Give Way' line at the end of the
cycle lane. THe meaning of this line is clear to all road-users. Whether the
cycle lane should continue is a moot point, but the layout is not dangerous,
unless users choose to ignore the 'Give Way' line.
Regards
Noam Bleicher
078 1847 1655
056 0268 4870
Maybe the contractors get a special prize if they manage to make a job last
over a year - the anniversary of the start of this is coming, and there seems
little rush to finish off the final bits (including digging up a part of the
pavement that I thought they'd done).
As to bus shelters, you have to contrast the planning that had the new shelters
go up on the North side - and then had to take them out again while they did
the pavement, and the South Side, where they've laid the pavement - which
they'll have to take up to put in the shelters.
When it's all over - I assume that it's someone's job (city or county council?)
to resore the verges? I ask because after the gas pipes were laid, there's
still barren earth at the corner of Gipsy Lane/Old Road which could easily have
been reseeded with grass. The corners of Gipsy and Pullens Lanes with
Headington Road need putting back into a decent state.
I think I should clarify why I think this cycle lane is dangerous. I do that right turn every single morning, and it is only safe if executed with caution, a quality that I am afraid to say many cyclists lack. If the light is red, a cyclist is justified in feeling that it is safe to turn right into the empty cycle box. But as he or she is turning, the lights sometimes change in favour of the traffic behind (but the cyclist may not see this). Vehicles coming up to the lights slow down, but do not stop if they see the light start to change in their favour. I think there is a risk that drivers (especially ones not used to Oxford) may not expect a bike suddenly to join the road at right angles in front of them. I shall continue to proceed on this assumption, even if I am wrong, because proving my thesis right would be too painful. Good news about the new Oxford Tube low-emission buses, Noam: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4428564.Bus_firm_invests___9m_in_London_fleet/
Thanks for clarifying this Stephanie. I think your concerns can be summarised
as 'this junction is to be approached with caution by cyclists, who should be
aware than traffic may start to move'. I cycle to work and although I won't
pretend I am perfect, I do my best to approach all such conflict points with
caution. It sounds as you do as well, which is entirely the right approach.
It is indeed good news that the new Oxford Tube Vanhools are here. As the
article states, they are cleaner that the incumbent Neoplan vehicles and have a
slightly higher seating capacity. It is not mentioned, but I have heard, that
the Vanhools are also much quieter than the Neoplans. This is good news for
passenger comfort.
This has an added advantage. Combined with the fact these vehicles are cleaner,
the fact they are quieter should put on the back foot those tax-exile hoteliers
and cloistered dons on the High Street who are campaigning to have Oxford's
public transport cut back.
Regards
Noam Bleicher
078 1847 1655
056 0268 4870
This last point, like tree surgeons claiming a tree is diseased, is
outrageous.
The drivers of buses in the High infrequently obey the letter and less often
spirit of the law.
The big coaches produce a massive decibel load when accelerating as any user
of the streets which the buses serve must know. It is good that
replacements for some of the fleet may lessen the noise load. The drivers
could accelerate less aggressively, with less noisiness, but as the engine
is so distant from their ears they don't suffer the consequences. For
pedestrians and nearby residents, long or short-term, the noise is awful and
intrusive. If you are on the footpath as they accelerate the impact stops
conversation. As a cyclist the acceleration is a continual threat which
drivers, bus companies, transport planners (and politicians?) seemingly all
choose to ignore.
So a point which all could probably agree, is that the presence and impact
of buses in the High (and elsewhere too) is intolerable. Yes the public
transport is very often very convenient and if you use the route along the
High you will have an interest in decisions. The two facts live together
but equally something could be done about noise, about numbers and about
presence i.e. routeing. It is no doubt amusing but quite unproductive to
sideswipe hoteliers and restaurant owners and cloistered Dons, but why
bother to start? They too can be a part of a solution and in the case of
the High Priority report they commissioned and which I contributed to, some
alternatives were explored. The problems in the High are real and measurable
and in this case, County leaders and cabinet, and transport planners, and
engineers, Oxford City conservation office and the untouchable operators in
the Jacob's Highway Engineering office all conspire to ignore the issues
affecting users.
Are we going on to another strand about size of coaches? I suppose these new
Vanhools are as huge as their predecessors - probably larger. In my view,
they are responsible for most of the agitation about the oppressive impact
of the buses and coaches in the city centre, particularly when they zoom
round St Mary Mag's in what I presume is a re-routing manoeuvre which ought
to be forbidden. The X90 is quite as large as we ought to tolerate in the
centre, and OBC seem able to run such a coach size profitably.
Tony
>
> So a point which all could probably agree, is that the presence and impact
> of buses in the High (and elsewhere too) is intolerable.
Actually, no. I *definitely* don't agree with that.
It seems to me that if the whole "Transform Oxford" debacle showed
anything, it was how far out of touch its creators were with public
opinion (from the people I've spoken to, it wasn't so much as to
whether the council was out to lunch, but rather whether they were
*in* for a single meal...). So I rather suspect most taxpayers don't
agree with you.
And it's not just as simple as "if you use the route along the High
you will have an interest in decisions". If you compromise the
connection between the centre of the city and the edges, you
potentially compromise the popularity and viability of the entire
service. So it's even of interest to users *way* outside even of
Oxford.
Of course a noise reduction with no consequences is beneficial. But I
find it a touch ironic that it was always claimed as a goal to "reduce
the number of busses" along that route; the simple mathematical
consequence being you need bigger busses - with larger, noisier
engines. But the council ought to be well versed in the law of
unintended consequences by now.
Frankly, I don't think the "real and measurable" problems of which you
speak (which to me are part and parcel of living in a City rather in
the quieter, but altogether less-mass-transit-available countryside)
are sufficient to offset the benefits they provide (and, more
importantly, the additional "real and measurable" problems they
create), and no amount of fantasizing that the road layout isn't the
way it is, or wishing to believe that changing bus 3 times in 5 miles
isn't going to drive users away is going to change that. Restaurant
owners and Dons get the sideswipes because of the widespread feeling
that public policy is being set purely to benefit them - they don't
use public transport themselves - and to hell with the everyone else.
Public transport, of which I assume we are in favour, in order to be a
success (vs the alternative) ought to strive to be quick, comfortable,
cheap and convenient. Every time you make one of those metrics worse,
you'll find users will substitute.
For goodness' sake, if it's undesirable to travel to the town centre by car,
and by bus, and you can't use a bike for whatever reason, exactly how are you
to get there?
----- Original Message -----
From: graham paul smith
To: 'Noam Bleicher' ; <email obscured> ; 'Oxford - Headington &
Marston Neighbourhood For'
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Headington/London Road improvements
This last point, like tree surgeons claiming a tree is diseased, is
outrageous.
The drivers of buses in the High infrequently obey the letter and less often
spirit of the law.
The big coaches produce a massive decibel load when accelerating as any user
of the streets which the buses serve must know. It is good that
replacements for some of the fleet may lessen the noise load. The drivers
could accelerate less aggressively, with less noisiness, but as the engine
is so distant from their ears they don't suffer the consequences. For
pedestrians and nearby residents, long or short-term, the noise is awful and
intrusive. If you are on the footpath as they accelerate the impact stops
conversation. As a cyclist the acceleration is a continual threat which
drivers, bus companies, transport planners (and politicians?) seemingly all
choose to ignore.
So a point which all could probably agree, is that the presence and impact
of buses in the High (and elsewhere too) is intolerable. Yes the public
transport is very often very convenient and if you use the route along the
High you will have an interest in decisions. The two facts live together
but equally something could be done about noise, about numbers and about
presence i.e. routeing. It is no doubt amusing but quite unproductive to
sideswipe hoteliers and restaurant owners and cloistered Dons, but why
bother to start? They too can be a part of a solution and in the case of
the High Priority report they commissioned and which I contributed to, some
alternatives were explored. The problems in the High are real and measurable
and in this case, County leaders and cabinet, and transport planners, and
engineers, Oxford City conservation office and the untouchable operators in
the Jacob's Highway Engineering office all conspire to ignore the issues
affecting users.
Graham
-----Original Message-----
From: Noam Bleicher <email obscured>]
Sent: 11 June 2009 10:44
To: <email obscured>; Oxford - Headington & Marston Neighbourhood
For
Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Headington/London Road improvements
Thanks for clarifying this Stephanie. I think your concerns can be
summarised as 'this junction is to be approached with caution by cyclists,
who should be aware than traffic may start to move'. I cycle to work and
although I won't pretend I am perfect, I do my best to approach all such
conflict points with caution. It sounds as you do as well, which is entirely
the right approach.
It is indeed good news that the new Oxford Tube Vanhools are here. As the
article states, they are cleaner that the incumbent Neoplan vehicles and
have a slightly higher seating capacity. It is not mentioned, but I have
heard, that the Vanhools are also much quieter than the Neoplans. This is
good news for passenger comfort.
This has an added advantage. Combined with the fact these vehicles are
cleaner, the fact they are quieter should put on the back foot those
tax-exile hoteliers and cloistered dons on the High Street who are
campaigning to have Oxford's public transport cut back.
Regards
Noam Bleicher
078 1847 1655
056 0268 4870
If you look at a map of Oxford, roughly half of housing is east of Magdalen
Bridge and the major shops are west of the bridge. This requires public
transport for residents to go shopping.
Remember that Westgate is due for redevelopment sometime in the future and
presumably will eventually attract more customers who will need yet more buses.
Maybe a second coach station should be situated somewhere east of the bridge ?
Just think, none of those London coaches would need to travel along the High
Street!
On 11 Jun 2009, at 17:09, <email obscured> wrote:
> If you look at a map of Oxford, roughly half of housing is east of
> Magdalen Bridge and the major shops are west of the bridge.
If you include areas outside the city proper like Botley it might be,
but as far as the city council area is concerned it's a much more
skewed ratio - more like 2/3 east with the remainder west (8 out of 24
city council wards are west of the rivers).
> This requires public transport for residents to go shopping.
I dare say there are some in the various corridors of power and vested
interest in the city though who think that "They've got their own
shopping centre, why do they need to use *ours*"...:)
> You might not like the consequences of ‘the presence and impact of buses’
> but the tolerability is easy to check. Try standing next to a bus stop, or
> the controlled crossing at Catte Street, as the buses move away. And re
> Pippa’s comment – no – I have not ever suggested that bus services should
> stop, but they can have a markedly lesser impact if only the drivers and the
> companies would let themselves change behaviour. The power, speed and turbo
> noise of the buses has increased enormously in recent years, passengers have
> had some improvement in comfort, but perhaps are more likely to be shaken
> around as the power is turned on.
Before you mentioned it, it had never occurred to me that *anyone*
found the noise literally "intolerable"!
I can imagine if you lived right next to a bus stop, had no double
glazing, and a particularly sensitive nature, you might have a point -
but until today I've never heard anyone complain about the noise, and
I regularly stand next to bus stops. And I'd imagine that the
bendy-busses that were mooted for the high-street would have been less
freqent, but louder.
Therefore, as I say, I'd go out on a limb, and counterclaim that
"hardly anyone agrees that the presence and impact of buses in the
High (and elsewhere too) is intolerable".
> ...
> Private companies adjust service to be
> as economical as possible to deliver, the passenger comes second.
> Annoyingly, council-run services were also not perfect but the ‘social
> purpose’ behind public transport could be better provided for.
>
Well, I don't care who provides them, but I'd observe that currently,
on the busses, to get me and my partner into town and back on the
occasions if we decide to go out for the evening costs £5.60 (!).
Thise means that, basically, always drive. Epic Fail.
> The Transform Oxford claim to reduce numbers of buses could be reasonable.
> Changing bus, if you are not used to it, is a pain but many do have to
> change anyway.
That seems to me to be a bit like saying that some people don't have
electricity, so you shouldn't mind if we cut yours off...
> The service that once connected Headington and Summertown is
> (I think) no more so those passengers have a change to make.
Partially the reason I never go to summertown! I wonder if the
calculation is different, now there is a Waitrose here...
>
> Public transport can be a “good” but not inevitably so! And the costs and
> benefits of living in the city are not entirely linear. If you go to
> (nearly) any place of the same size as Oxford in Denmark, The Netherlands,
> Germany, Switzerland to name a few, the noise in the centre will be less
> (not counting motor-traffic-free streets). Buses are rarely driven so
> aggressively and noisily, and two or three times as many journeys are made
> by bike. People can also walk more, even children, measurably different to
> the situation in the UK.
>
Often these comparisons are to cities with a purpose-built
infrastructure, built with public transport in mind from the outset
and (crucially) don't perform urban planning as if it were sim city.
I'd love a Headington->City tramway (or, if we're going to fantasize,
why not an underground railway). Not going to happen. Comparing the
end results in other places is pointless as you just can't get to
there from here. Equally well, I could point many other places in the
UK of the same size as Oxford and see that we may be underappreciating
just how good things are here! Why must always there be this
"something must be done" mentality.
>
>
> All these points you make are not black and white. I don’t think the
> colleges on the High or the businesses believe that their concerns are
> responded to by the Transport Planners etc. The colleges report appalling
> conditions for staff and students cycling in the High and the hotel reports
> complaints from people staying in the rooms or even on the footpath outside.
Of course not. Equally well, I can report some appaling cycling by
college staff and students.. But excuse me if I feel the residents of
Oxford and surrounds ought to have more of a say on the transport in
their city than visitors staying in Hotels, particularly ones who have
a problem with city noises, and yet book hotel rooms right in the
centre of a city!
We seem to have lost track of a thread about bike lanes. "This junction is to
be approached with caution by cyclists, who should be
aware than traffic may start to move" is fair, but I'd add "and to be
approached with caution by drivers, who should be aware that cyclists have been
directed to perform a manoeuvre that may place them across traffic even when
the lights are green". Not something that many drivers will be expecting,
including me!
Personally I never hop onto a pavement bike lane unless I know it's not going
to dump me somewhere I don't want to be at the other end. This is the trouble
with many bike lanes. However sensible they might look at first sight, you
never know until you try them. Do the people that design them ever use them?
As for the buses, I lived in a room on the High for a year two decades ago and,
yes, it was certainly annoyingly and disturbingly noisy, but I didn't find it
"intolerable". At that time, cars and lorries were allowed on the High as well
as the big double-decker coaches that Citylink were running. It seems to me
that the High is in general quieter now than it was then (there's certainly
less traffic), but even so I would always think twice about booking a room in a
hotel whose address was "High Street" in any city!
Perhaps if the buses were given less space, i.e. on a narrower roadway, then
the drivers wouldn't feel that they owned the road so much and would be more
sensitive to the environment around them. Maybe there would be room for a
dedicated bike road in parallel as well as an increase in pedestrian space, and
even a bit of vegetation to shelter some of the buildings from the traffic
noise. Pipe dreams, I know, but they seem to be ripping up every other inch of
road between the Westgate and Green Road (OK, apart from St Clements), so why
not that bit?
The current breed of Tube does seem to be excessively loud when accelerating,
and they're very big. I hope the next batch have less of an impact.
The suggestion that the "presence of buses" on the High is "intolerable" is
clearly ludicrous though (isn't it?), and I'm sure it wasn't what was meant.
Andy N
Quarry
Andy
The Road markings at this junction clearly indicate that cyclists should
*Give way*. There should be no circumstances whatsoever when a cyclist
performs "a manoeuvre that may place them across traffic when the lights
are green" if these instructions are acknowledged and adhered to.
'Give way' requires the road user to yield to other traffic (moving or
not), so if the traffic lights are green, they should only enter if it
is safe to do so, otherwise they should yield.
I do agree though that motorists would need to be cautious of the fact
that some cyclists joining at this junction may want to turn right into
Headley Way, but no more cautious than they need to be at any other
junction, when dealing with different road users travelling at different
speeds.
Regards
Mick
<email obscured> wrote:
> We seem to have lost track of a thread about bike lanes. "This junction is
to be approached with caution by cyclists, who should be
> aware than traffic may start to move" is fair, but I'd add "and to be
approached with caution by drivers, who should be aware that cyclists have been
directed to perform a manoeuvre that may place them across traffic even when
the lights are green". Not something that many drivers will be expecting,
including me!
>
Mick
> 'There should be no circumstances whatsoever when a cyclist
performs "a manoeuvre that may place them across traffic when the lights
are green" if these instructions are acknowledged and adhered to'
I thought Stephanie explained the circumstances in which this could happen with
admirable clarity in her post of Jun 10 09:00. She said:
"If the light is red, a cyclist is justified in feeling that it is safe to turn
right into the empty cycle box. But as he or she is turning, the lights
sometimes change in favour of the traffic behind (but the cyclist may not see
this)."
Despite being a cyclist myself (and a driver), I must say I hadn't thought of
this - hence my point needing to try the bike routes out in order to understand
whether they make sense.
As an aside, when I'm cycling I do resent having to stop and give way to
traffic that's going the same way as me along the same road! I think I'd
probably stick to the main carriageway at this junction...
Andy N
Quarry
I think current thinking is to plan for two kinds of cyclist:
i. Cautious cyclists and children who are not in a hurry and will cycle slowly
enough along a segregated ped/cycle path so as not to pose a threat to
pedestrians. As they are not in a hurry they will not resent giving way to
motor traffic when required.
ii. Confident cyclists who want to make progress and are happy to share the
carriageway with motor traffic as long as it does not hold them up when it gets
congested.
THe facility we have been discussing in this thread is aimed at [i]. I, like
Andrew, fall into [ii] so wouldn't bother using it.
Regards
Noam Bleicher
078 1847 1655
056 0268 4870
The bumpy new pavement cycle lane going up towards Osler Road is criticized as dangerous in today's Oxford Mail: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4464940.New_Oxford_cycle_land_really_does_give_you_the_hump_/
That's a great picture in the Oxford Mail. I must admit I didn't soar quite
that high going up to the Farmer's Market on Friday.
I will go to the Transport Decisions meeting on Thursday at County Hall and speak as the local County Councillor. It would be useful to know what the Forum thinks is best way forward on issues such as the subway but suspect there is no common line. Anyway let me know what you feel are the main issues and I will represent these in my interjection. Bumpy cycle lanes are an opportunitty to have another go at the lack of dedicated cycleways citywide and need for County policymakers to recognise there are cyclists here. Roy Darke > From: <email obscured> > Subject: [Oxford-HM] Headington/London Road improvements > To: <email obscured> > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:00:03 +1200 > > The bumpy new pavement cycle lane going up towards Osler Road is criticized as dangerous in today's Oxford Mail: > http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4464940.New_Oxford_cycle_land_really_does_give_you_the_hump_/ > Stephanie Jenkins > Headington ward, Oxford > Info about Stephanie Jenkins: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stephaniejenkins > > View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5xOVCxV15QG3qNu93BaUoD
It's probably peevish of me, but the Oxford Times story from Thursday gave the
impression that the road works scheme was over - but surely until Seimens come
and fix the Gipsy Lane lights and turn on the bus lane, then it's not over.
That gives the County every chance of having taven an entire year to do the
job.
And I see also they are putting back the knee rail fencing on Pullens
Lane south as it was rather than, as suggested, with simple bollards
that would stop road users getting onto the grassed area but not
prevent pedestrians diving onto it in the event of meeting two cars
trying to pass each other, whilst leaving open a section that will be
wide enough for cars to drive onto.
The lack of forethought is astounding.
Jock
(who will worry more about cyclists' needs when they stop trying to
kill me going down the non-cycling - but unsigned for a decade -
Cuckoo Lane south)
The following file was added to this topic:
It's a slightly shrill article, though the picture's great. Presumably you can
avoid the worst of the bumps by keeping to the left side of the bike path (or
the right side, if you're cycling in the wrong direction like the fella in the
picture).
Having said that, does anyone know why they don't put these bike lanes at the
same level as the road, instead of at the same level as the pavement (sort of)?
For the benefit of those "cautious" (or perhaps "less confident") cyclists, you
could still separate the traffic from the bikes with a raised curb, a bit like
the ones over Donnington bridge, except perhaps lower, more continuous and less
chunky. You could put gaps in the curb to allow access to properties and to
allow bikes to rejoin the main road. The bumpiness would then be restricted to
the pedestrian footpath, where it would only annoy runners and those pushing
buggies or wheelchairs.
Actually, I suspect I've just answered my own question. Putting the bumps in
the bike lane means you don't have to put them on the pedestrian footpath,
which means they only inconvenience cyclists. Still, it would be nice to know
the official reasoning.
I support the subway - I've been using it a lot recently.
I agree it needs a clean - but so does everything else!
Is it possible to document the cave paintings thoroughly though in case it is
eventually walled up and lost? There's quite a bit of history and personalities
there to remember.
David Clover
We had an assurance some time ago that the paintings in the subway would be
preserved and be available to be seen in a variety of ways - so we will
have to make sure that happens.
Agree they should not be lost.
Mary Hope
Some years ago I had a drop curb installed in front of my house. I was told
that a minimum of 1metre was required between successive drop kerbs.
There are now four drop kerbs in sequence with 1 metre high kerbs separating
them. Although there isn't a cycle lane, some cyclists seem to like jumping
them as in the Oxford Mail photo.
It also forces electric chair riders to drive in the road so as not to get
shaken around so much.
I think it would be better NOT to have these short high kerb sections, perhaps
to fit a bollard instead to stop car parking
I wouldn't say Mike Ratcliffe is being exceptionally peevish. I too noted the
Oxford Times's blithe statement that work had finished in May. I took the
accompanying photo on Friday. It doesn't look very finished to me.
The following file was added to this topic:
Roy Graham maks some pertinent comments in the article but it seems to me that Oxford has never been a city designed for cyclists. This is a lost opportunity to design a purpose built cycle lane all the way from Headington Hill as far as Green Road roundabout. There is enough space/width (except maybe in the centre of Headington) to create one instead of the daft up/down bumps and the weaving in and out of trees and other street furniture past Bury knowle on the pavement. By the way, CYCLISTs BEWARE, Headington hill was dressed/resurfaced with grit today and a right mess, and dangerous, it is too. Not sure why it was done because it seemed unnecessary and was not part of the proposed road improvements. On the subway, there have been many comments over recent months so good luck in collating them. andrew > From: <email obscured> > To: <email obscured>; <email obscured> > Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Headington/London Road improvements > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:13 +0000 > > > I will go to the Transport Decisions meeting on Thursday at County Hall and speak as the local County Councillor. It would be useful to know what the Forum thinks is best way forward on issues such as the subway but suspect there is no common line. Anyway let me know what you feel are the main issues and I will represent these in my interjection. Bumpy cycle lanes are an opportunitty to have another go at the lack of dedicated cycleways citywide and need for County policymakers to recognise there are cyclists here. > > > > Roy Darke > > > From: <email obscured> > > Subject: [Oxford-HM] Headington/London Road improvements > > To: <email obscured> > > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:00:03 +1200 > > > > The bumpy new pavement cycle lane going up towards Osler Road is criticized as dangerous in today's Oxford Mail: > > http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4464940.New_Oxford_cycle_land_really_does_give_you_the_hump_/ > > Stephanie Jenkins > > Headington ward, Oxford > > Info about Stephanie Jenkins: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stephaniejenkins > > > > View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5xOVCxV15QG3qNu93BaUoD > > ----------------------------------------- > > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > > > More information about Oxford - Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum:
This forum's power continues to amaze: the Gipsy Lane lights are now on.
Shame that Dorset House is coming down, the County are randomising the bus
stops in town, etc etc
Andrew
This shouldn't be a problem because all the cyclists I see cycle as far as they
can up, and a number speed down, the pavement section!
Some do, not all, and its a minority but the fault lies in the design
which encourages it. Thats why with all the money being spent on London
Road it is misguided of the County and there agent/consultants not to
incorporate a properly designed cycle track into the scheme and beyond.
andrew
> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>; <email obscured>;
<email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Oxford-HM] Headington/London Road improvements
> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:24:06 +0100
>
> Andrew
>
> This shouldn't be a problem because all the cyclists I see cycle as far as
they can up, and a number speed down, the pavement section!
Phase 2 of the London Road scheme has been approved: for details see this page on the county council website: http://tinyurl.com/london-road-phase-2
How nice it is to see our old friends Drayton Construction back with us.
Time seems to have flown since they were last with us, so it's nice to see them
digging up what they appear to have finished back in July. Maybe they could
finish the pavement outside Headington Girls School while they're here?
I particularly like the sign they've positioned at the end of Latimer Road to
discourage anyone from driving up it (maybe we could keep it when they've
gone?)
The following file was added to this topic:
On 27 Oct 2009, at 14:15, <email obscured> wrote:
> How nice it is to see our old friends Drayton Construction back with
> us.
>
> Time seems to have flown since they were last with us, so it's nice
> to see them digging up what they appear to have finished back in
> July. Maybe they could finish the pavement outside Headington Girls
> School while they're here?
>
> I particularly like the sign they've positioned at the end of
> Latimer Road to discourage anyone from driving up it (maybe we could
> keep it when they've gone?)
>
I had not noticed they were back. SO I guess now is the time to
contact them and ask them t sue British Gas or whatever they need to
do in order to get them to make good the pavement at the end of
Headington Hill nearest the bus stop where they have filled in their
hole in the blockwork with tarmac.
Also, does anyone know the rules about pavements, bus stops and wheel
chair access? It seems to me that having the bus stop sign and bin by
each of the "London bound" stops opposite Brookes on the outside of
the pavement at an angle from the shelter makes it very difficult to
pass even with bags let alone what it must be like in a wheelchair.
This cannot be legal surely?
I will post below the press release about the work near Latimer Road from the
county council website, because I can't seem to use "tiny url" at the moment.
I also attach a picture.
London Road – changes to cycle facilities at junctions.
Published on: 26 Oct 2009
Oxfordshire County Council is carrying out changes to the cycle lane junctions
at Latimer Road, Horwood Close, Sandfield Road , access to London Court and the
access to the White Horse Public House.The work at Latimer Road require 24 hour
traffic signal control and work is expected to last three days. The out bound
bus lane will remain unaffected. Traffic signals will be manually controlled
with spotters from 7am to 7pm. The works at this site have been brought forward
7 days to coincide with the school holiday to minimise impact on traffic.
Work on Horwood Close, Sandfield Road , access to London Court and the access
to the White Horse Public House will not require traffic signal control but the
bus lane will be closed over the immediate approach and a short section after
each location.
Duration of the work is four weeks starting on Monday, October 26.
Here is the picture: it only shows as much of the roadworks as I could get into
one shot.
The traffic is flowing reasonably from Oxford, because the bus lane is open all
the time; but the traffic going into Oxford is held up.
This section of pavement cycle lane does actually need improvement; but it's a
pity they didn't get it right first time.
The following file was added to this topic:
They're back again!
This time it's the Pullens Lane/Headington Road bit that Drayton Construction
are digging back up again.
Let's hope they notice the tarmac bits that the gas men left behind in the neat
paving across the road, and maybe they could be convinced to finish the fence
to stop people parking on what ought to be grass, but has been left as a muddy
patch as this example from last week shows.
The following file was added to this topic:
Starting @ 15 February 2010 ending @ 22 February 2010 Slight disruption expected. According to the new Live Travel information section on the County Council web site - http://voyager.oxfordshire.gov.uk/OSGBMaps/map.aspx
That makes it clear that it's repairs to the footpath - the one that they laid
a year ago.
They've laid plastic duck boards over the mud that is the patch of land so that
pedestrians can walk over it. Do you think that Drayton could assess that it
was (a) them that first churned it up and failed to re-seed it and (b) them
that didn't replace the fence so that cars drive onto it and churn it up more?
I understood that triangle of land was owned by the City Council and was not in
the lease of Headington Hill Hall to Brookes - hence it's unloved status.
Yes - it appears they are lifting the very severe up and over section
at the entrance to the lane - presumably to enable vehicles to take
the junction at full speed or something...:-)
That piece of land has a long an inglorious history, of which the
expert is a resident of further down Pullens Lane who I think is not
on this list.
It is actually not "owned" by anyone, and there have been several
attempts to get someone to register it and take some responsibility
for it in recent years, both that and the road itself.
For a while the City Council conceded that they probably owned it
because the Morrell family had disposed of the whole land between the
hall and the Davenport House to the city by default, and that's why
the fence was mended once and some no parking signs put up, then they
backed out towards the end of 2008. Brookes had agreed to look into
taking on the whole lot too but when the city said they would backed
out and have never come back so far as I am aware.
A local landowner who shall remain nameless but who has already been
linked with development down there has also tried to get some control
over that stretch of land to create a proper public right of way over
that section of paved lane it is thought in order to improve their
chances of getting some kind of sale if the opportunity arose.
The chap in the know did I think tell me that there was something else
in the offing a couple of months ago when I last complained about it,
but I didn't get to hear what.
However, there is a legal footpath that is on the county's list of
ones they are supposed to maintain down the green/mud area and so even
if ownership of the land is not sorted out I have today argued in a
Fix My Street request that they should fix the fence properly to
ensure that vehicles do not get onto the footpath. They did do half a
job last time - indeed probably did replace what was really there when
they started the pavement scheme - but at the beginning of last
semester a whole load more of the knee rails further up were removed,
presumably in the middle of the night by some "local residents" (!) so
the whole thing now needs looking at again.
I'll try and talk with the chap who knows and see what the latest
"moves" he intimated were and report back if I hear anything.
Dear Forum, Are the the Headington Hill, uphill cycle lane, signs still there? They are connected with the botched Pullens Lane entry. There was complaint 15 months ago about similar signs, apparently in the same positions. The County said 'there was no alternative' and 'the signs couldn't be on lampposts'. Both are untrue and this time around I found support for objecting to the cycle path being. It is in the excitingly titlled "Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 8,Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations" http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/tsmchap8part2.pdf O3.14.5 Care should be taken not to place cones, signs and other items in locations likely to cause hazards to cyclists. O3.14.6 Where there is cycle provision, such as cycle lanes or tracks, efforts should be made to keep these open or to provide an acceptable alternative during the road works. They should not be blocked by signs, debris, plant etc. O3.14.8 When cycle routes, and other facilities for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians, are affected by the road works the changes should be clearly signed well in advance of the road works. I trust you will agree that these instructions appear to have been ignored by Highways staff. Councillors, could you whip butt, metaphorically of course?
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.