Oxfordshire County Council
Local Transport Plan 4: 2015-2031
Oxfordshire Bus Strategy
Oxford Civic Society Response
April 2015
67 Cunliffe Close, Oxford OX2 7BJ | 07505 756 692 | info@oxcivicsoc.org.uk | oxcivicsoc.org.uk
registered charity 1116739
General
The Introduction tries to paint an up-beat picture of bus use in Oxfordshire by selecting
particular statistics. However, as shown in Figure 1, over a ten-year period 2002-2011 there
has been little or no increase in bus use for commuting, with the Oxford figure stuck at just
over 20%. This is high compared to some other UK cities, but low otherwise. In para 4 it is
more likely that slow travel times and poor connectivity between services are more important
than unreliable journeys. It would be useful here to see a comparison of journey times by bus,
bike, car and walking on some key routes. No reason is given why transforming the bus
network (how?) will be a key contributor to limiting congestion in the future. With bicycle
being often the fastest means of travel in Oxford (and without connectivity issues), one could
more convincingly argue that measures to make cycling easier would make a larger
contribution. It is not clear what is meant by “more efficient means of transport”: faster?
Lower CO2 emissions?
We support the Council’s vision for bus services: “a modern bus and coach system which is
fully integrated with rail and other modes of transport, provides an attractive, viable, and
socially inclusive alternative to the private car for most local and medium-distance journeys,
and has (a) supported growth and economic vitality across the County, (b) achieved a
substantial shift to sustainable, low carbon modes of travel, (c) helped reduce traffic
congestion, and (d) generally improved the quality of life and local environments in
Oxfordshire”. Although “local” and “medium-distance” are not defined, it could be argued
that for “local” journeys bicycle use would be more attractive for many users and at lower
cost, were it made easier.
The Bus Strategy
This contains 12 elements. However, many of these are not new, and one might ask how or
why those that are not new have failed to deliver:
Integrated transport planning – it is difficult to see why Oxford’s experience, where relevant,
has not already been adapted for use elsewhere.
Cohesive and integrated bus network and provision of accessible, high quality infrastructure
– why don’t we have an integrated network already? Is this a casualty of privatisation? What
is the “infrastructure”?
Tackling congestion and delays by implementing bus priority or other traffic management
measures – many bus priority measures have already been introduced, but the scope for
further ones is limited, and needs to be spelt out.
Adapting the bus network to cater for more complex and dispersed journey patterns – this is
surely in the gift of the bus companies, as financial pressures are unlikely to lead to more
subsidised services. The County, however, will only “encourage” this.
Development of mass rapid transit systems and other routes between Oxford and a proposed
new outer ring of Park & Ride sites – this is really new. However, the sites have yet to be
assured, and it has to be recognised that car drivers may prefer to drive further in and park in
residential streets (to the fury of residents) rather than use these new P&R sites. The nature of
the Rapid Transit system has to be defined; to make it viable it may well need to pick up
more passengers along the routes into/through Oxford, and absolute priority along the route
will be essential, as well as efficient fare collection systems to minimise dwell times at stops.
The development or upgrading of new high quality Premium urban and interurban services
where new development makes it feasible including bus priority measures and enhance
passenger and interchange facilities – it is not clear that bus users distinguish between
Premium and non-premium services, and making this dependent on new development making
it feasible is a hostage to fortune. Bus services need to be in place before new developments
come on stream. The mention of interchange facilities is welcome, though there is no reason
why these should not have been designated already.
Enabling good onwards access on foot to major destinations – all bus journeys start and end
on foot. Public transport services need to be easily accessible at major destinations, as stated.
A strategy for public transport in rural areas to deal with funding cuts to the Supported Bus
Services Programme – it is surprising that a hierarchy of public transport services (including
carsharing etc) is not already in place to deal with this. Clearly modes lower in the hierarchy
will become more important – “intelligent mobility” technology may have a role to play here.
Further development of multi-operator and multi-modal smart payment to offer a greater
range of journey choices – this has been quite successful in Oxford. It is not clear how this
would offer a greater range of journey choices, though it should make modal transfer faster.
Further development of the Quality Bus Partnership approach to focus on improving service
punctuality/reliability, information and integration – not clear what is new about this.
Improvements to securing and use of developer contributions for bus development through
section 106 and CIL contributions – this is usually dependent on the developer, and thus
wholly unreliable.
Enhanced partnership working with local planning authorities to achieve better coordination
between land use planning and future bus service provision – good luck: most local planning
authorities regard transport as the County’s responsibility.
Oxfordshire’s Bus Network
In para 10 the need is more likely to be for faster services rather than improved journey time
reliability to increase bus use. The generally slow speeds, sometimes little faster than
walking, and always slower than cycling within Oxford city, hardly describe a “high quality
bus network”.
In para 13 the reasons why bus patronage generally has not grown significantly should surely
be examined before any new measures are introduced.
In para 14 there is clearly a need to develop a new approach to rural transport, though it is not
clear why this should be wholly “public”. What about ride sharing, by facilitating intelligent
mobility techniques?
Changing demand for the bus network
Para 15 is correct in indicating that single-stage bus or other services (though not cycles!) are
inadequate to connect all the sources and destinations of journeys, and we agree that “multimodal interchange will be an increasingly important issue in providing good access and
achieving modal shift”. Why then have multi-modal maps of all bus and other services not
already been provided at all bus stops, indicating where passengers can most conveniently
interchange?
Para 16 needs to include reduced journey times as an essential strategy for increasing
passenger growth.
Bus network strategy
The division of buses into Rapid Transit, Premium Transit, Connector Transit and
Community or Local Transit will seem confusing to most users, for whom buses are usually
defined by route (and therefore number), and independent of operator. If Connector Transit
buses are to be a key part of the overall network, they need to run as frequently as the Rapid
Transit and Premium Transit routes. It is strange to see Community or Local Transit buses
considered as “Non-Strategic Bus Network”. For those who use them they will be Strategic.
It is clear from this section that the primary concern is for bus routes to be commercially
viable. Other issues are secondary. This puts the responsibility clearly on the bus operators,
not the County. Surprisingly, in para 19 journey time (i.e. faster journeys) is not listed as one
of the factors affecting commercial viability. Since passengers pay per journey, the more
journeys achieved per hour, the higher the revenue, allowing either higher frequencies, fewer
buses per route, lower fares, higher profits, or a combination. The recent decision by the bus
companies to raise fares because of the current plethora of road works in Oxford city and
consequent delays illustrates this point well. Since the key benefits are for the operators,
surely they should be making inputs into the policy actions listed in para 20.
Bus rapid transit routes/services
Para 21 lists the most of the key characteristics of Rapid Transit routes, i.e. priority measures
and sometimes purpose-built infrastructure, though not the reduced journey times implicit in
their title. However, it gives no indication of why Bus RT is preferred over Rail RT. The
details given on pages 55 and 56 give a very one-sided view of Bus RT. In fact, Rail RT
(usually trams) is much more widely used in European cities. The “typical features” of faster
passenger boarding, faster fare collection and a unique and identifiable public image are also
shared by Rail RT, and trams are generally considered to have a more clearly identifiable
public image than buses. The first two features do not, of course, have to be limited to RT
systems, and could in principle be introduced on all of Oxford’s buses today, with
corresponding advantages. The argument for Bus RT over Rail RT based on flexibility is
erroneous: the buildings and other places served (traffic generators) are fixed, often for
centuries. Indeed the presence of a fixed RT link can help to encourage sustainable
development by prioritising such development in close proximity to such a link (see Oxford
Futures). While capital costs for bus RT may be lower, rail RT typically covers its operating
costs, and the large jump in ridership (often a doubling) that almost always accompanies the
introduction of rail RT is an added benefit. There is also the public impression that trams
create a positive image for a city. They are also very sustainable, running on electricity, using
a variety of technologies that nowadays do not require the erection of catenary in historically
sensitive parts of cities. The Bus RT illustrated is unusual in that it joins separate settlements
with a long guided busway through the countryside.
Premium Transit routes/services
It is encouraging that the main priority here is to improve journey times, though the measures
required do not seem to differ much from those required for Bus RT.
Connector Transit routes/services
The success of these services should in principle be linked to that of the Premium Transit
(and RT) services, and there needs to be some financial mechanism that links their success to
the Connector Transit services (a phenomenon very familiar in the airline industry), rendering
them more viable. Strangely, the concept of easy interchange between Premium/RT services
and Connector Transit services (as in the Swiss taktfahrplan) is not mentioned here. It is
noteworthy that the main concern here (para 27) is commercial viability, not public service.
The issues of on-street parking and inefficient traffic signal operation (think Frideswide
Square) are surely just as relevant for Premium and Rapid Transit services.
Developing and upgrading bus services and routes
It is important for new developments that the initial “pump-priming” (para 29) is planned to
start as soon as the developments are occupied, to set in place more sustainable travel habits.
Design of developments can play as important a role in minimising journey times (e.g. on
foot or bicycle) as can shorter bus routes (para 30). It is far from clear that walking distances
greater than 400m to bus stops are “tolerable” – where are the data to support this view?
Community or Local Bus Routes/Services
The focus of paras 32-34 is on bus services rather than those who might use them. Provision
of “socially necessary” services is clearly important, but there should also be consideration of
how journeys could be facilitated for those who need regular transport but who do not own a
car. These could include car sharing, car clubs, and provision of secure cycle storage at bus
stops on nearby Premium or other bus routes, thus enhancing access to those services (and
their viability).
Public transport interchange strategy
Para 38 might include two further challenges:

Poor timetabling – all too often several buses on different routes, which nevertheless
use the same route for much or part of their journey arrive within a short time (say, 5
mins), followed by a long wait until the next one. This discourages travel involving
interchange.

No help (e.g. maps indicating good interchange points) in planning interchange for
those who are not familiar with the complexity of Oxford’s bus services.
The principal feature of interchanges should be easy interchange. Users ideally should spend
a minimum of time at the interchange if the process is to work efficiently. While some degree
of protection from inclement weather should be provided, it is difficult to see why restrooms,
waiting rooms, retail outlets etc should be provided at most interchanges. Printed and real
time service information should be available at all stops, and pre-payment ticket machines
should be provided widely, if not at all stops. The intention to provide secure cycle parking is
very welcome. Since rail stations already provide the building for an interchange, bus stops
should be placed as close as possible to the main exit from them.
In para 41 no wider master plan as yet exists for the station redevelopment: the areas covered
by the station, Oxpens and Westgate masterplans are adjacent, but have been developed by
separate bodies with little or no regard for each other. Proper consideration of all three
together would show that the opportunity thus provided for a new rail station/bus/cycle
interchange at the Oxpens, and associated commercial development greatly exceeds what can
be achieved by developing Oxford station on the current site with a bus station which offers
poorer connectivity/interchange than the existing bus station.
The problems of unofficial “Park & Rides” using residential and shopping streets (para 43)
are more likely connected with charging policy at existing P&R sites.
In para 47 “more efficient payment and ticketing systems” need to overcome the dual use of
drivers as cashiers. This, as pointed out in para 48, speeds up boarding and journey times. It
is not clear why this para considers that this is of benefit only to operators, nor of why
demand for the extension of the Smartzone integrated ticketing system has to wait for
increased bus network development (para 49).
The areas covered in Figures 5, 6 and 7 are within 10 km of travellers’ workplaces. Since this
is probably also the practical limit for regular cycle use, it would be instructive to include
data for the numbers making those journeys regularly by bicycle, as a more sustainable
transport mode than private car.
Inter-urban bus network
This section might explore the advantages of improved connectivity at key inter-urban bus
stops (and possibly increasing their number) where appropriate. Inter-urban buses often
provide a valued increase in bus frequency along radial routes in Oxford (e.g. S1 along
Botley Road), supplementing local bus services, and potentially improving the viability of
such inter-urban bus services, at a small cost in extra journey time.
Park & Ride
Access to some existing Park & Ride sites (e.g. to Seacourt P&R from the A420/A34
interchange) could be improved to reduce the congestion caused by cars driving to those
sites. This might allow further expansion beyond the current capacity, if land space or
decking were available (para 61). Developing other sites beyond the ring road may be less
attractive if users feel them to be less secure. If these sites are replacement sites, it does not
follow that the bus modal share will be increased (para 66). The existing sites also benefit
from being close to other local and interurban bus services, providing alternative services,
and overall a more frequent service to Oxford. This would be lost at the proposed sites further
out. In view of the limited opportunities for P&R buses to overtake normal service buses, and
their locations along existing bus routes, the opportunity to consolidate P&R and other
services should be investigated, as in Nottingham. This would help to increase the viability of
Rapid Transit services.
It is not clear from para 68 whether it is proposed that services from/to neighbouring and
rural areas and longer-distance coach services will start from the new P&R sites. If so, this
would greatly reduce bus congestion along the routes through Headington from London and
Airport buses (these latter in particular causing delays during fare collection and luggage
stowing processes). It is also not clear why the bus journey times and reliability for all
services using the Bus Rapid Transit routes will be greatly enhanced unless major
improvements to bus priority are undertaken on the portions of those routes between the
existing P&R sites and the city centre.
In the longer term, better coordination of transport services and residential and other
development will be needed if the objectives in para 69 are to be achieved.
The Knowledge Spine
The problems of the A34, and the existence of the main rail line linking many of the sites
along the Knowledge Spine are well highlighted in paras 73 and 74. The great potential
advantage of the rail link is its independence from the frequent delays on the A34, and the
much shorter journey times between stations. Didcot-Oxford is 15 min by rail and 30-60 min
by bus. Many of the key clusters are close to the rail line, but only accessible from the A34
(the only strategic corridor) along busy minor roads, often twisting through villages. A more
viable model would therefore be based on rail transport between stations, with (short) road
connections from the stations to the main business/employment clusters, and it is surprising
that this model has not been considered. Electrification will greatly assist acceleration of rail
services. Four-tracking between Oxford and Didcot is already being considered, and would
be necessary to accommodate such services (a 15-minute frequency has been suggested),
which would be similar to a German S-Bahn. The main reason for the current relatively low
numbers of rail commuters compared to bus commuters (Table 5) is almost certainly the
relatively poor rail service between major centres and intermediate stations such as Culham.
Plans for reconstruction of a station at Grove are being considered, but others that spring to
mind include Kennington, Kidlington, and Milton Park. Feeder bus services would play an
important role (e.g. Abingdon-Radley, Witney-Long Hanborough). This combination would
have much the same effect on reducing car use as P&R sites.
Strategy (para 79)
Park & Ride. Any improved bus connectivity between Oxford and other parts of the
Knowledge Spine will be limited, since the proposed new P&R sites are not themselves
located at key locations along the spine.
Interchange. Better interchange will improve connectivity, with the new Rapid Transit line
through the Eastern Arc being key to improved access. The locations of the new P&R sites
will have to be chosen very carefully if they are to develop as significant bus and coach hubs
as well as car/Rapid Transit interchanges.
Major new road corridor between Didcot and the eastern side of Science Vale with east
Oxford. No detailed diagram of the proposed route is shown, and how it will connect to the
key sites at the Churchill and Radcliffe hospitals and Brookes University. New roads are very
expensive, and a comparison with four-tracking the existing rail corridor between Didcot,
Culham and Oxford (which can be justified on other grounds) is needed here.
Innovative strategic bus routes. It is not clear what is meant by this. If these are new services
running on existing roads they will be subject to the usual delays on these roads, and they
may need to serve other traffic generation centres not immediately connected with the
Knowledge Spine to make them viable. The route for a north-south busway spine from Lodge
Hill (not adjacent to any major spine centre) to the Harwell Business Park is not specified,
but again rail connections (which would also serve Oxford and sites to the north) would
appear to fulfil the requirement much better. A rail Transit could also serve Milton Park and
Grove. While part of the former Didcot-Newbury line has been incorporated into a new
housing estate at the Didcot end, the formation might be used for a heavy- or light-rail
connection via the Hagbournes, or as part of a key route through the new developments
planned to the south-east of the Harwell site. The idea of bus priority at A34 junctions and
other links to the A34 would appear to ignore the disadvantages of existing congestion along
the A34 corridor.
Connecting Oxford and the wider region
This section completely ignores the possible roles for rail to contribute to connectivity. It
would be useful to see some figures for the current and projected needs for journeys along the
routes listed in para 82.
Public transport for rural areas
This section (paras 85-90) identifies the transport problems for those who do not have a car
and live in settlements that are too small to justify any bus service, but provides no
palliatives. One might suggest:

Measures to encourage car-sharing and car clubs, possibly including preferential
parking in local larger settlements or at bus stops

Provision of facilities at neighbouring bus stops on operating bus routes to encourage
use of cycling as part of the journey
Bus service information and marketing
Users do not care who provides information, so long as it is available. Nor do they usually
care which company provides the services, so long as they serve the desired destination. The
present system in practice means that there is little incentive for bus companies to provide
information about

competitors’ services, even where these might offer a good combined service through
interchange,

an overall map of services in the general area (e.g. within the ring road for Oxford),

good locations for interchange between different services where this is necessary to
reach the desired destination.
After several decades of privatised bus services there is still some way to go to provide what
the traveller needs.
Integrated ticketing and payment
“Smart” payment systems have made a very significant reduction in the time wasted during a
journey by drivers having to act as cashiers. However, there is still a substantial number of
passengers who are obliged to waste the driver’s and other passengers’ time changing money
through the lack of alternative means of ticketing such as machines at bus stops. This seems
to work in other parts of the country, so why not in Oxfordshire? On routes with high
patronage the time required to load and unload passengers could be further reduced if
multiple doors were available (as on some buses). In other cities this does not seem to create
a problem of revenue capture. It is not clear whether the proposed Rapid Transit buses will
have multiple doors.
Quality Bus Partnerships
It is not clear what new is being offered here, and why the issues raised have not already been
addressed. Under punctuality and reliability improvement congestion is often the main cause.
The response of operators appears to have been artificially to increase journey times by

breaking cross-town services into two services; this may make it easier to start bus
services on time, but introduces delays for passengers who have to change buses and
possibly pay an extra fare.

building extra journey time into the timetable; this results in buses that have managed
to save time during one part of a journey waiting with a load of passengers at stops
(e.g. route 4 or 4B from Abingdon and Cumnor or S1 from Witney at West Way,
Botley; or route 4 occupying the St.Aldate’s stop for 5 minutes while the timetable
catches up with it).
Neither of these processes improves the journey experience.
See above for comments on information and marketing, which also apply to improving doorto-door integration and the overall passenger experience.
Promoting bus (and other public transport) use through the planning process
While such promotion is likely to be limited to new developments, we strongly support the
principles put forward, though funding from small developments is likely to be difficult, and
would ideally be planned through a Central Oxfordshire Development Corporation rather
than through individual smaller section 106 contributions. We agree (para 114) that there is a
need to plan a future integrated network that links different developments rather than simply
introducing a series of isolated routes, and (para 117) that there needs to be a clear local (and
wider) vision for a future bus (and other public) transport network. We would add to para 120
that not only are bus (and other) services and infrastructure a vital part of the solution for
additional travel demand and congestion that could be generated by planned development in
the county, but improved public transport is essential to reduce the existing congestion
problems for which Oxford and its region is notorious. A more basic key performance
indicator than those suggested is journey time: unless journey times are reduced there is little
incentive for more people to choose to use public transport rather than the private car.
Oxford and surrounding area
Most of this section repeats what has already been said previously. Indeed the dependence of
Oxford’s success upon a large number of in-commuters means that for many purposes the
issues are similar. The challenges in para 128 summarise this well:
Traffic congestion: while some “pinch points” may have been ameliorated, it is difficult to
see why new ones are being created (e.g. a new Waitrose store with 150 car parking spaces
along the Botley Road).
Congestion associated with current Park & Ride sites: it is surprising that no action has been
taken to provide direct access from the A34/A420 junction to the Seacourt P&R.
Restricted bus movement around/through the city centre: while to some extent this may
hinder the development of cross-town services (but not routes 4 and U1), the corollary is that
much more space (and space x time) is taken up by buses that terminate in the centre laying
over in and around the city centre and waiting to depart from their stops, using scarce road
space (e.g. in St.Aldate’s and Castle Street).
Further bus growth: further growth in capacity will be very difficult, and supports the case
for high-capacity Rapid Transit systems running through the city from east to west and north
to south.
Limited public transport interchange: this is hindered by the limited number of cross-town
services and the large number of different services, which require many bus stops (e.g. along
St.Aldate’s). Basic cross-city services (Rapid Transit) with interchanges to a wider range of
bus routes outside the city centre would help to solve this problem.
Limited bus connectivity to and within the Eastern Arc: development of the proposed Rapid
Transit route through the Eastern Arc would help to solve this. For this to work effectively it
may be necessary to look at solutions beyond using existing narrow residential roads for
some of the route (tunnelling or possibly compulsory purchase of selected properties?). A
Rapid Transit route from Summertown/Kidlington/Water Eaton P&R via the JR and
Churchill hospital sites to the Cowley and Magdalen business parks, Blackbird Leys and back
to central Oxford would offer much needed extra connectivity.
Disruptions of the road network: the limited number of roads that can be used as alternatives
when normal routes are subject to roadworks is indeed a disadvantage. We would like to see
consideration of a relief Botley Road serving the many retail outlets along it, the Osney Mead
industrial estate (thereby removing one of the pinch points along the Botley Road and greatly
increasing property values in the estate), and then crossing the river Thames and the railway
line to end up at the Westgate Centre. This would help to solve the as yet unsolved problem
of how the many expected extra staff and customers will reach the new Centre, and could
also give priority access for the east-west proposed Rapid Transit. Were the new railway
station and bus and cycle interchange to be built on the Oxpens, this would also provide good
access to it.