Bicester London Road Level Crossing

Option Assessment Report (OAR) Part 1

04 21

Banbury Transport Development Option Assessment Report Part 1 2

Version Author Date Comment 1.0 Roger Background sections and assessment of DS1 & DS2 undertaken O’Neill 1.1 Katie 01/12/20 Assessment of DS3a & DS3b undertaken, review of previous Parnell assessment and updates for consistency, conclusions and recommendations added 1.2 Katie 20/04/21 Final review and edits undertaken across document Parnell 1.3 Katie 10/05/21 Addition of executive summary Parnell & David Rawson

Contents

Chapter Page

0 Executive Summary 5

1 Introduction 8

2 Current Situation 9

3 The future ‘without scheme’ scenario 26

4 The Need for Intervention 29

5 Objectives 32

6 Options Generation & Initial Sifting 33

7 Overall Assessment 55

8 Conclusions and Recommendations 59

Appendix 1 Predicted flows from Bicester Traffic Model 62

Appendix 2 Do nothing Demand Flow 63

Appendix 3 EAST summaries 66

Bicester town centre

London Road Level Crossing

Figure 1: Area of Interest

Executive Summary

frequencies. In particular, the OAR 1. Introduction considers what measures should be An interim report on this Options Appraisal prioritised for investment once train service Report (OAR) was presented by Oxfordshire frequencies increase above those already County Council (OCC) to the East West Rail expected following opening of the next (EWR) Consortium Strategic Board on 9th EWR stage (Bicester to Bletchley/Milton December 2020. Keynes). An update, on the final OAR, was presented By developing the evidence base, the OAR by OCC to the EWR Consortium Strategic helps to build a common understanding Board on 16th March 2021. The amongst Partners of the longer-term Recommendations of this Agenda Item transport access investment options were agreed. needed in Bicester as the EWR project The OAR presents this work, which has develops. This is considered key to enabling been collaboratively contributed to by EWR the longer-term potential of EWR to be Co., and is intended to inform EWR Co. in its realised. further development and delivery of the 3. Methodology Project. 6 project objectives were developed: 2. Background i) To facilitate expansion of rail services The OAR was funded through the while maintaining connectivity across the Consortium Work Programme, with the town and promoting town centre vitality work undertaken by the OCC Innovation and accessibility. Team (iHub), in association with transport ii) To encourage the development of a high- modelling by consultants WYG using the quality, innovative and resilient integrated Bicester model. transport system that promotes active The OAR sets out and appraises options for travel provision and supports healthy place- interventions that will help enable shaping. continued access to and from Bicester town iii) To promote opportunities for centre as level crossing down-time pedestrians and cyclists in Bicester. increases in line with train service

iv) To reduce carbon emissions from for each of these scenarios is shown in transport in Bicester and improve air quality Figure 19. in the town, particularly within the The OAR work pulls together the designated Air Quality Management Area. assessment of these options, both against v) To improve connectivity between key the objectives set for the project, but also employment and residential areas and their using evidence from modelling work to access to the strategically important assess their benefits/disbenefits, before transport networks, including rail services. going on to produce an EAST (Early vi) To encourage and facilitate the efficient Assessment and Sifting Tool) assessment for operation of bus services in Bicester and the each option. surrounding area. 4. Outcomes of study work undertaken In addition, 3 intervention project options a) Assessment of Options against were defined: objectives • Option (do-something) 1: Deliver SE Link The options were assessed against the Road and Bicester Bypass improvements. objectives, each objective being scored. The • Option (do-something) 2: Direct highway proposed sustainable transport options intervention at London Rd (bridge or generally score better overall against the underpass). objectives set, than the highway • Option (do-something) 3a and 3b: intervention options. See Table 8. Delivery of a package of sustainable b) Assessment of options using the transport improvements taking account of Bicester model the Bicester Local Cycling and Walking Transport modelling for Options 1 to 3b was Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) – 3a sets out a undertaken: series of comprehensive cycle and walking improvements, which 3b adds further to. • Option 1: Delivery of the SE Link Road and Bicester East Perimeter Road Both Options 3a and 3b forecast a scenario improvements. where travel demand in the Bicester urban area shifts towards walk/cycle trips. The • Option 2: Direct highway intervention at mode split predicted in the Bicester LCWIP London Road (either a bridge or underpass).

• Option 3a: Development of a Option 3b, a package of significant comprehensive cycle and walking network interventions to promote sustainable for Bicester. transport, scores best overall, scoring high

• Option 3b: Development of cycle network, in all 6 of the Objectives in the including certain road closures to re- Methodology, as well as obtaining the allocate space to active travel modes. highest EAST scores and generally more favourable traffic flow impacts than the and compared against a ‘do-nothing’ other options. option, and a ‘do-minimum’ option, see Table 7. However, although each option was assessed in isolation to complete the OAR, • ‘Do nothing’ – continued use of London it is recognised that a package of transport Road assuming approx. 50% down-time. investments will be needed to mitigate the • ‘Do-minimum’- closure of London Road severance issues that further rail services with no additional intervention. will cause along London Road. The package c) Assessment of options using the central will need to deliver a place-based solution government Early Assessment and Sifting that fits with the wider Bicester area Tool (EAST) transport strategy and fits with wider existing and imminent policy. Each option was also appraised through use of an EAST assessment, against the 6. Recommendation strategic, economic, managerial, financial It is recommended that the Promoter and and commercial cases. See Table 9. Developer, in developing EWR:

5. Conclusions/ Next Steps 6.1 use the outcomes of this OAR to Option 2, a direct highway intervention at inform the development of a safe London Road, scores least well overall, and effective longer-term solution scoring low in Objective iv), and only for London Road, and; achieving mid-scores in Objectives ii), iii), 6.2 maintain OCC as a key Stakeholder and vi). in a collaborative relationship.

1. Introduction

This Part 1 Options Assessment Report crossing. It sets out the initial development centres on the transport issues within of options to resolve the traffic issues Bicester, focusing on those around the within the Bicester area. It will follow the London Road and, in particular, the level following process:

Figure 2: Part 1 OAR processes

2. Current Situation 2.1. Geographic Context

Bicester is an historic market town located transfer between them and have separate in Cherwell district, Oxfordshire. The total stations within Bicester).

population of Bicester wards in 2011 was The London Marylebone line also allows for 30,854 residents including 62 people living the future re-opening of the line to in communal establishments. Between Bletchley and Bedford and the longer-term 2001 and 2011 Bicester had grown by 2,182 restoration of the line between Bedford and i residents (7%) , making it one of the fastest Cambridge. growing towns in the county. Bicester has long had a strong connection The town lies just to the north of Junction 9 with the military. RAF Bicester was of the M40. The A41 former trunk road constructed in the inter-war period and RAF connects the motorway with Aylesbury and operations continued until 2004. It is a Tring, passing to the south of the town in a designated battlefield site. The Depot at bypass. Graven Hill has been a long-standing store Bicester lies on two railway lines: the for ammunition and other military materiel, Oxford – London Marylebone line and the complete with its own railway access and Banbury – London Marylebone line sidings (also now discontinued). (although these two lines do not allow for

2.2. Socio-demographic Context

The following data for Bicester comes from West, North, East and South wards the 2011 Census. As such, it is worth noting (essentially the area within the Perimeter that some change might reasonably be Road.) expected to have occurred since then, The total population of the Bicester wards particularly given the impact of COVID-19 in 2011 was 30,854 residents, up 2,183 (7%) on aspects such as employment rates for from 2001. There were 12,286 households example. The data should therefore be in the town, up 6% from the previous viewed with some caution. The data Census. aggregates the returns from the Town,

The qualification attainment of the population (16+) is shown in Table1.

No qualifications 18% Below 5 GCSE A*-C 17% 5 GCSE A*-C 17% Apprenticeship 4% 2 A levels 13% Degree or higher 26% Others 6% Table 1: Resident Population aged 16+ by highest qualification, 2011

The 16-74 population also includes 1,207 employees. The unemployment rate was full time students. As well as university 3% of this population. students this will include full-time students The National Statistics Socio-Economic at schools and colleges. Classification classifies residents according

to occupation, employment status, Of the 2011 population 56% of the resident supervisory role and size of workplace. The population (aged 16+ years) were defined 2011 results for Bicester are summarised in as full-time employees, with a further 8% Table 2 and Figure 3. self-employed and 15% defined as part-time

Higher managerial & 11% professional Lower managerial 24% Intermediate occupations 15% Lower supervisory 9% Small employers/own account 7% Semi-routine 15% Routine 12% Never worked/ unemployed 2% Not classified 5% Table 2: Socio-Economic Class Bicester 2011

Figure 3: Status of employees (Bicester 2011) 5% 11% Higher managerial 2%

Lower managerial 12%

Intermediate occupations

Small emp'rs & own acc 24% Lower supervisory 15% Semi-routine

Routine

Never worked/lt unemployed 9% Not classified 15% 7%

In 2011 71% of households were owner- detached houses, semi-detached houses occupiers, 12% were social rentals, and a and terraced houses while 10% of further 15% were privately rented. About households lived in flats. 30% of households lived in each of

Figure 4: Rank of employment (Bicester residents 2011) 9% Managers, directors 11%

Professional occupations 7%

Associate prof & technical 16% Administrative/secretarial 11% Skilled trades

Caring, leisure, service 8% Sales & customer service 14% Process, plant & machine ops

Elementary occupations 11% 13%

Figure 4 shows that in 2011 41% of Bicester in administrative roles. Customer-facing residents were in managerial, professional occupations took up a further 19% with or technical occupations, with a further 13%

27% of residents in generally “blue-collar” roles.

0% Figure 5: Industry of employment, 0% 0% Agriculture Bicester 2011 4% Mining/quarrying 11% 1% Electricity, gas, a/c supply 10% Manufacturing Water supply 7% Construction Wholesale/retail 9% Transport/storage Accommodation & food Information / communication Financial 10% Real estate Professional, scientific, technical 21% Administration Support 4% Public Administration Education 6% 4% Health & social work 4% Otter 1% 5% 2%

Figure 5 shows the industries in which Bicester residents worked in 2011, In 2011, households in Bicester owned irrespective of their role in that industry. 17,031 cars/vans. This was an increase of This shows a variety of industries, with only 8% from 2001 and represents about 1.4 wholesale/retail (21%), manufacturing cars per household. Given this, it is perhaps (11%), public administration (10%) and unsurprising that over two thirds of health/social work (10%) employing 10% or employed residents in Bicester (16-74) more of the local workforce. (It should be travel to work by car, either as driver or as noted that these figures relate to the passenger. The full breakdown of travel to employment of Bicester residents, work is given in Table 3. irrespective of where they are employed).

Train 3% Bus 4% Driving car 62% Car passenger 6% Motorcycle / moped 1% Bicycle 4% On foot 10% Work at home 9% Table 3: Method of travel to work, 2011

Table 3 also shows the low figure who and 6% in Cherwell; whilst these latter travel to work by public transport (7%), encompass rural areas where walking and although the figure for walking and cycling cycling is likely to be lower, due to distances is a comparatively high at 14%. This involved, the comparative figures are compares to an average 5% within the indicative of the relatively high propensity South East as a whole, 7.5% in Oxfordshire, to active travel within Bicester.

2.3. Economic Context

Cherwell's Economic Development Strategy agricultural land is also noted in this (2011 – 2016) highlights the current document, which is important in this opportunities for Bicester to develop a ‘low- context, since much of Bicester is carbon economy’, by developing ‘green’ surrounded by grade 3 agricultural land. technologies and knowledge around existing and new employers, sectors and The role of high tech and innovation clusters - to create a centre of expertise and employment is also of importance for potential competitive advantage. Bicester, which seeks to attract these kinds of employers into newly developed and This is reflected in the Local Plan 2040 developing commercial sites, drawing on its review paper, produced to facilitate location along the Oxfordshire ‘knowledge stakeholder engagement on updating the spine’, which links Bicester to Oxford and Cherwell Local Plan, with its key theme of Science Vale. This is also part of the wider ‘maintaining and developing a sustainable Growth Corridor, which connects these local economy’. The importance of

areas through to Milton Keynes and Historic environment and its importance to Cambridge. the local economy is also mentioned in this document – particularly around supporting tourism in the district.

2.4. Planning and Development Context

Bicester is a market town which has grown The Bicester Masterplan has helped forge a rapidly in the last 50 years and where consensus amongst stakeholders that the further significant growth is planned. It has town needs: good road and rail links and infrastructure  to secure sustainable growth and significant further investment is through new job opportunities and planned. Employment in the town is mainly a growing population; in the distribution and manufacturing  to be a desirable employment sectors. location that supports local Underpinning the Cherwell Local Plan is a distinctiveness and economic vision and a spatial strategy for the District. growth; The spatial strategy for how the growth in  to be a sustainable community with the District is managed can be summarised a comprehensive range of social, as: health, sports and community  Focusing the bulk of the proposed functions; growth in and around Bicester and  a vibrant and attractive town centre Banbury; with a full range of retail,  Limiting growth in rural areas and community and leisure facilities; directing it towards larger and more  an exemplar eco-town building sustainable villages; and upon Eco Bicester – One Shared  Aiming to strictly control Vision; development in open countryside.  a safe and caring community set within attractive landscaped spaces;

 business and community networks London Road is ensuring continued access that promote the town and the eco- to/from Graven Hill, given its proximity to development principles; the site. It should be noted that the  and to be developed as a continuing Cherwell Local Plan is currently being destination for international visitors updated, and there may be some changes to Bicester Village and other following this process.

destinations in the area.

The Local Plan identifies a number of large developments for the town, as shown in

Table 4. Of particular note in relation to

hectares North-west Bicester eco-town 10 Graven Hill 26 Bicester Business Park 29.5 Bicester Gateway 18 North-east Bicester 15 South-east Bicester 40 Housing Allocations homes North-west Bicester eco-town 3293 Graven Hill 2100 South-west Bicester Phase II 726 South-east Bicester 1500 Gavray Drive 300

Table 4: Employment and Housing Growth, Bicester Source: Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031

On 26 September 2016, the Oxfordshire Cherwell Local Plan was conducted in 2016- Growth Board (a joint committee) agreed 17 to cover the issue of meeting this unmet an apportionment of Oxford's unmet housing need. As a result of this, Cherwell housing need to the Oxfordshire districts, District Council published a set of proposed including 4,400 homes to Cherwell District Main Modifications to the Local Plan, (2011-2031). A Partial Review of the submitted to the Secretary of State in March 2018. This proposed the allocation

of the 4,400 homes to sites in north Oxford,  accommodating growth without Kidlington. Begbrooke, Yarnton and having an adverse effect on the Woodstock Oxford Meadows Special Area of Conservation; The Local Plan identifies the key  addressing deficiencies in 'green' environmental challenges facing Bicester as infrastructure; and being:  improving the attractiveness of the  the need to improve the town's employment areas. appearance of the town centre and The paper put together for consultation historic core; around the formation of the new Local Plan  delivering town centre for Cherwell – ‘A Community Involvement redevelopment and environmental Paper’ – does also outline some additional improvements to Market Square; key issues facing the town, as follows:  accommodating major growth whilst addressing constraints such  the need to improve daytime, as: evening and night-time use of the  the severing effect of the town centre town's perimeter roads,  the need to manage continued out-  managing growth in a way that commuting will not unacceptably harm  the need for an Eastern Peripheral important natural and historic Road assets,  the need to discourage unnecessary  addressing the capacity of the car trips within the town centre sewage works and energy The aim is that by 2031, Bicester will have infrastructure, and grown significantly to become an important  maintaining the character, economic centre in its own right, and on the appearance and setting of Oxford-Cambridge corridor. It will have historic assets such as RAF become a more attractive place to live and Bicester Conservation Area and work and will be significantly more self- nearby villages; sustaining both economically and socially. Bicester will have established itself as a

location for higher-technology businesses with attracting higher-technology building on its relationship with Oxford businesses to date, and aims to consider through the Bicester Gateway ways to address this and other development. employment-related challenges within the new plan. The consultation paper for the new Local Plan does, however, identify challenges

2.5. Transport Context Figure 6 shows the flows recorded at an just to the south of the level crossing since automatic traffic counter on London Road 2001.

London Road, Bicester (CP439 north of Talisman Road) 14000 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000

Annual Average Average Flow DailyAnnual 7000 6000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 6 Traffic Flows – London Road (note: some data were missing and have been interpolated)

The data show that traffic levels have The sharp decline in traffic in 2014/2015 declined steadily over the past 20 years relates to the period when the railway was from a high point recorded in 2002. This being worked on prior to the opening of the possibly relates to changes in the road Oxford-London Marylebone service. Since layout within Bicester town centre making this low point, traffic levels have stabilised London Road a less attractive route. at about 9,000 vehicles per day.

2.6. Bus Services Bicester is served by a small network of through the town. Most of the town is buses operating a mixture of local and served by one of these services. The main longer distance bus services around and services are shown in Table 5.

Service Serving Weekday Frequency

8 Middle Barton 2x daily Fridays only

18** Buckingham 5x daily weekdays only

21 Highfield Every 30 mins, no service Sunday

26* Kingsmere Every 30 mins, no service Sunday

250 Upper Heyford, Oxford Approx every hour, no service Sunday

E1 Elmsbrook, Bicester Village Every 30 mins, no service Sunday

S5* Oxford Every 15 mins

X5 Oxford, Buckingham, Milton Keynes, Every 30 mins Bedford, Cambridge

Table 5: Bus Services in Bicester (November 2020 – timings approximate, based on weekday running times * - changes to timetables and some routes anticipated in January ’21 ** - possible changes to timetable and route)

With regard to the London Road, currently (partially) replace the section of the route (as of November 2020) the S5 runs 1 service no longer to be served by the S5, running an hour along the road and on to from Bicester to the John Radcliffe hospital Ambrosden, Bullingdon and Arncott, but in Oxford and to Bullingdon respectively via from January 2021 this will cease and the S5 London Road. This will mean more buses will no longer serve this section of its route. running along the London Road as of However, new services H5 and 55 will January 2021.

2.7. Rights of Way

Figure 7: Rights of Way, Bicester Source: DEFRA, MAGIC website

As seen in Figure 7, Bicester has a rights of through Langford Village and on to meet way network not untypical of small market the perimeter road close to Wretchwick towns where most footways are alongside Farm. Beyond the perimeter road, there is highways supplemented by a few dedicated a typical network of rural footpaths. footways. The railway lines create major The Cherwell Local Plan notes that Bicester barriers for walking with only a limited is in an excellent position to benefit from number of crossing points. Near the several important wider initiatives including London Road crossing there is only one the proposed improvements to the rail non-roads-based footpath, with a link which network from Chiltern Railways and the runs from just south of the level crossing East-West Rail. around the back of some allotments,

2.8. Constraints

Statutory Land Designations

Habitats

Figure 8: Bicester, Natural Habitats Designations Source: DEFRA, MAGIC website

Figure 8, using data from DEFRA’s MAGIC Heritage

database, shows that the bypass is As can be seen in Figure 9, there is a high designated as deciduous woodland, as is concentration of listed buildings in Bicester much of the railway embankment and the town centre (mostly Grade 2 but with a few small area bounded by the A41 Bypass and Grade 2* and 1 Grade 1) (depicted with London Road (shown in darker green). A squares – yellow Grade 1, red Grade 2, blue small area of the open land, abutting the Grade 2*). Beyond the perimeter road the allotment gardens, is designated as a site of the medieval village of Wretchwick is traditional orchard (mid green), and beyond a Scheduled Ancient Monument (excepting the perimeter road there are areas of good where the buildings of Middle Wretchwick quality, semi-improved grassland (pink and Farm have been built over it) (shown in paler green). yellow).

Figure 9: Land Designations, Bicester Source: DEFRA, MAGIC website It should be noted that much of the local managed to prevent the pollution of raw area is in a Drinking Water Safeguard Zone water sources which are used to provide – a designated area in which the use of drinking water. certain substances must be carefully

Figure 10: Conservation Areas Source: Cherwell Local Plan As can be seen in Figure 10, the area with a London Road to the railway line and high concentration of Listed buildings in the includes the market square, Sheep Street town centre also forms the basis for a large and as far west as Kings End. Much of the Conservation Area which extends down former RAF Bicester site is in a separate

Conservation Area, which is also a designated Battlefield Site.

Flooding

Figure 11: Flood Risk Map Source: Flood-warning-information-service.gov.uk

Bicester has a number of small rivers and and streams which pass through the town, streams passing through or close to it, including the area covered by Bicester feeding as tributaries the Rivers Ray, Village shopping centre.

Cherwell and ultimately the Thames. These could impact on the suitability of areas for development through flooding. Figure 11 shows information on flood risk in Bicester. It shows that there is a large area of flooding around the Langford Brook, presumably accounting for the break in development which allows for the parkland and allotments. However, London Road itself is not included in this risk area, despite running through it, and neither is the Oxford-London railway line. The flood risk does extend along some of the other rivers

Air Quality Since 1997 each local authority in the UK If the objectives are not likely to be has been required to carry out a review and achieved in an area, then the local authority assessment in their area and compare the is required to declare an Air Quality results with national air quality objectives. Management Area (AQMA). An AQMA for Bicester was declared in 2015.

Figure 12: Air Quality Management Area Source: Cherwell Local Plan

Figure 12 shows the AQMA declared in shown in Figure 13, however the air quality Bicester by Cherwell District Council. This remains close to or above the objective centres on the B4100 through the town and level. This figure also shows that air quality includes part or all of Kings End, Queens remains close to that level over a wide part Avenue and Field Street; it also extends of the town centre, not just the limited area along a section of St John’s Road. covered by the AQMA.

Since the declaration the air quality in Bicester has slightly improved overall, as

Figure 13: Air Quality Monitoring, Bicester Source: Cherwell Council

Noise Figure 14 shows the noise generated by generated would be higher than the eastern traffic on A-class roads in the Bicester area. perimeter road; this would be exacerbated It clearly shows the sheltering effect from by the lower speed limit and level crossing buildings on the inside of the perimeter which would encourage start/stop driving roads, with noise spreading further on the and idling. It would be expected that the outer side of the road. Sadly, this analysis noise would be contained close to the road does not include London Road but with its because of the development, particularly on flow it would be expected that the noise the town centre side of the level crossing.

Figure 14: Noise from roads Source: DEFRA, Extrium website

The same web site also models noise from cannot shed light on the noise around the railways but as this was carried out before level crossing. the opening of the Oxford-Marylebone it

3. The future ‘without scheme’ scenario

3.1. Future Developments

The railway line between Oxford and Phase 1 (2016) has delivered: Cambridge was closed in 1967. After that  Oxford and Bicester: two services the line was used for freight only, with the per hour (to London Marylebone) exception of the Bletchley-Bedford section. Based on current train service expectations: This included regular coal trains from the East Midlands to Didcot Power Station and -Phase 2 (target date 2024) will waste transfers for landfill in the clay additionally allow:

quarries in Bedford as well as other freight  Oxford and Milton Keynes: two uses. services per hour

However, by the early 1990s all these uses  Oxford and Bedford: one service had ceased, and the line had become per hour essentially moribund. In 1991 the passenger  Milton Keynes and Aylesbury: service from Oxford to Bicester was re- one service per hour

instated but these trains went no farther -Phase 3 (target date 2025+) will than Bicester Town (now Bicester Village) additionally allow: station. A campaign to re-open the Oxford-  Oxford and Cambridge: one/two Cambridge line was started shortly services per hour thereafter which aimed to achieve its ambitions in a number of phases.

Figure 15: Sections for East-West Rail Re-instatement

When all three phases are implemented Figure 16, with severe impacts on the ability there expected to be up to 7/8 trains of London Road to cope with the demands passing over the level crossing in each placed upon it. This compares to the direction per hour, depending on specific current 12 minute down-time, with an service patterns and freight operations. interim point following East West Rail phase This could mean that the level crossing 2 opening and signal upgrades being put in gates would be closed for the majority of place, when it will be closed for a projected the time through the day, as shown in 28 minutes an hour.

Figure 16: Possible level crossing closures per hour 14

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032

3.2. Uncertainties The speed of the re-instatement of the run between Oxford and Milton Keynes, East-West rail project for passenger services between Oxford and Bedford and between is subject to political and practical Milton Keynes and Aylesbury. These considerations and a full detailed services will be phased in over several programme is not yet available. For the years, with the first service expected to section from Bicester to Bedford The East start running by the end of 2024. West Rail Alliance is delivering this phase and is currently commencing construction. The section from Bedford to Cambridge is This phase will reinstate and upgrade old more difficult and subject to more railway lines, allowing new train services to processes which have yet to take place. A

five-stage progression has been set out for preferred route option) has been the processes which would, if successful, completed, with Stage 2 consulting on lead to a start of construction in 2025 and a specific route alignments expected in 2021. re-opening by 2031. Stage 1 (choosing a

4. The need for intervention

The impact of the closure of the level For the purposes of this appraisal DN crossing can be seen in Appendix 1 by represents the “do nothing” situation, when comparing the predicted flows in the DN the level crossing remains open, but at (Do nothing) and DM (Do minimum) reduced hours, whilst DM represents the scenarios. These are reproduced in Table 6 “do minimum” situation, where the level below. An explanation of the model used is crossing is completely closed, against which provided in section 6 of this report. the various proposals will be assessed.

Road DN DM

London Road (between Launton Road and level crossing) 6991 2937

London Road (south of level crossing) 4019 0

A41 west of Graven Hill/London Road 30699 32295

Charbridge Lane (at railway bridge) 21650 23379

Launton Road (just north of London Road) 9053 7759

Launton Road (at railway bridge) 13050 12696

Launton Road (north of Churchill Road) 15952 17266

A41 (between Bicester village and Vendee Drive) 38215 38543

Market Square (both sides combined) 9229 8221

Kings End (east of Queens Ave) 5372 6237

Table 6: Do nothing (DN) versus do minimum (DM) flows (Flows in Passenger Car Units (PCUs). Sections with at- or over- capacity flows at some point of the day are red highlighted)

These figures represent the impact of the vehicles is about halved north of the complete closure of the road against those current crossing and reduced to local traffic of the increased number of level crossing only to the south. About half of this traffic closures with the rising number of trains transfers onto the A41 Bicester Bypass and using the railway through Bicester Village about half onto the Eastern Perimeter station, when the road is assumed to be Road, causing longer sections of these to closed for 28 minutes per hour. reach or exceed capacity during AM and

The major impact is, unsurprisingly, found particularly PM peak (See figure 17). on London Road itself where the number of

Do nothing Do minimum

Figure 17: Predicted vehicle capacity percentage 2031 pm peak

On Launton Road there are reductions on The overall impact of this is that traffic is the lower end of the road, it is effectively increased in those areas where there is unchanged at the railway bridge, and higher currently either an air quality or noise at the northern end (presumably because problem, although this is balanced by a traffic is now routing into the town from reduction in those areas where this end of the road). There is a slight people/traffic interaction is likely to be reduction in flows in the town centre greatest.

(Market Square) but an increase in flows on If Bicester were an area without pre- Kings End. existing traffic and air quality issues, then

the closure of the level crossing without any The extent of this deterioration has not mitigating measures might be an acceptable been quantified, but the number of vehicles solution. However, given that the town has would be likely to increase by 16% and the problems at the moment, the closure model estimates that the delay at the without any mitigation measures is likely to Middleton Stoney roundabout would make these worse, particularly the air increase by up to 25% in the morning peak quality issue (since the designated AQMA hour, as shown in Figure 18, with other on Kings End would see additional traffic increases at the A41 roundabout. under a closure scenario), the acceptability of this as a solution is reduced (see Figure 13).

Do nothing Do minimum

Figure 18: Predicted Delays 2031 am peak

5. Objectives

5.1. Strategy Objectives

The Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031, plus its iv. To reduce carbon emissions from Partial Review to 2050, Connecting transport in Bicester and improve Oxfordshire (Local Transport Plan 2015- air quality in the town, particularly 2031), the emerging England’s Economic within the designated Air Quality Heartland transport strategy and the Management Area forthcoming Joint Strategic Spatial Plan v. To improve connectivity between (2020-2051) were consulted on policies key employment and residential which could impact on the proposals. A areas and their access to the draft list of objectives was drawn up based strategically important transport on these. These were considered by local networks, including rail services county councillors and key partners from vi. To encourage and facilitate the England’s Economic Heartland (EEH) and efficient operation of bus services Cherwell District Council and the following in Bicester and the surrounding objectives agreed: area.

i. To facilitate expansion of rail services while maintaining Since these objectives were set, it is connectivity across the town and recognised that there has been further promoting town centre vitality and policy development, including endorsement accessibility to an Oxfordshire Climate Action ii. To encourage the development of a Framework, and development of a new high quality, innovative and Local Transport and Connectivity Plan resilient integrated transport Vision. Although these are not considered system that promotes active travel to require any changes to the study provision and supports healthy objectives, it will be important to review an place-shaping updated policy context when taking iii. To promote opportunities for forward any options or proposals for further pedestrians and cyclists in Bicester appraisal.

6. Options Generation and Initial Sifting 6.1. Defining Alternative Strategies

The closure of the London Road level Road to £50 million for new crossing could potentially have significant underpass in the vicinity of impact on traffic in and around the centre the current level crossing. of Bicester, as identified in section 4.  2015, The East West Rail – Phase 2 Previously, over the past several years since Pre-Feasibility Engineering 2013, work has been undertaken by Assessment of New Variations to Oxfordshire County Council and Network London Road Level Crossing, Rail, to consider a number of options to Bicester, Options A1, C, D1 & D2, by address this concern, largely consisting of consultants Parsons Brinkerhoff: engineering feasibility and cost/benefit o This work assessed assessment. These studies have comprised: engineering feasibility for

 2013, The Bicester London Road tunnel options close to, or Level Crossing Alternatives Stage 1 – along the existing London Engineering Feasibility Assessment, Road, as well as potential by consultants Atkins: new A41 to Station Approach link Roads. It concluded that o This considered the feasibility of schemes to all options were technically replace the signalled crossing feasible. directly, plus alternative  2015, Bicester Transport Modelling – access road improvements London Road Options Assessment, between London Road and by consultants WYG:

the A41 and Launton Road o This study modelled the and the A4421. Estimated traffic impact of underpass costs were calculated, options (on and off-line), as ranging from £6.3 million for well as a potential new link a northern link road between road between the station Charbridge Lane and Launton approach and the A41. It also

calculated benefit to cost pedestrian/ cycle measures ratios (BCRs) for these would need to be provided options, based on separately due to gradient assessment against a future issues if a compliant height ‘do-nothing’ reference case. highway bridge was to be This work indicated that off- constructed to allow for line options linking the A41 future potential and the station would have a electrification. lower BCR (based mainly on  2017, Bicester Transport Modelling, journey time savings), London Road Level Crossing Options, compared to options more by consultants WYG: directly replacing the existing o The latest traffic model for level crossing. Bicester was used to assess  2017/18, Development of Preferred the BCR of the updated Option for London Road Level options based on assessment Crossing, Bicester, by Network Rail: of traffic benefits, against the o The latest work undertaken latest costs. This work by Network Rail reviewed forecast a lower BCR than the feasibility of 4 options: the previous work, with both An on-line subway broadly the underpass and bridge following the route of the options scheme showing low existing London Road, 2 value for money.

offline subway options Work to date has ruled out some major running through the current infrastructure build options previously station car park area to the considered on cost or value for money north of London Road, and grounds, and impacts on the wider Bicester an overbridge option, also highway network. It was considered that running to the north of due to high forecast costs, it would be London Road. Pedestrian/ difficult to produce a positive business case cycle facilities could be for these major schemes based on traffic or directly included within the subway options. However,

safety benefits. Schemes previously ruled London Road to keep the route open out include: without the need for interruptions to allow railway traffic to continue; and  An off-line underpass to the 3. Delivery of a package of sustainable existing London road, routing transport improvements within Bicester to the north of the road under to encourage more internal trips in the the station car park and town to walk or cycle (or use public building. This was ruled out transport) and thereby reduce the due to significant disruption to overall demand. the running of the station a) The creation of a comprehensive during construction cycle network, connecting every  An underpass on-line with the neighbourhood and village existing London Road. This was b) The creation of the comprehensive ruled out due to impact on cycle network plus a series of residents, especially during supportive measures to promote a construction, since it would cycling culture in Bicester require closing London Road and crossing for up to 2 years It is worth noting that stakeholder engagement into strategy 2 as part of Following the initial work to rule out some previous studies undertaken, identified that options, three alternative strategies have the underpass option is generally more been put forward to counter the potential acceptable to wider stakeholders than the impacts of the London Road Level Crossing overbridge – this option would be less closure, 2 of which have alternative sub- visually intrusive and would not require a options (a and b): separate solutions for walkers and cyclists 1. Delivery of the South East Link Road and to use it (as the bridge would do, due to the capacity improvements on Charbridge gradient needed to allow for future Lane to provide an alternative for traffic electrification), although it would be displaced from London Road; considerably more costly, time consuming 2. The construction of a direct to construct and more complex to engineer replacement, either in the form of a) an than an overbridge. underpass or b) an overbridge, of

6.2. Traffic Model Description

Impacts of the different options to be Takes the existing reference case 2031 assessed have been modelled using the pre- model and recodes the network to existing Bicester SATURN model. This model completely close the London Road level- has a forecast year of 2031, and was crossing. therefore considered a suitable reference c) Do something 1 (DS1) 2031 with case to test scenarios at a point where the London Road level-crossing closed and level crossing is assumed likely to be South East Link Road + Eastern Perimeter effectively non-operational should phase 3 Road dualling (Charbridge Lane) of the proposed line re-opening go forward. Takes the new above DM reference case Variable demand transport model (VDM) 2031 and codes the network to include the runs were undertaken to inform this OAR. Southeast Link Road and the Eastern VDM runs account for induced and Perimeter Road capacity improvements. suppressed trips, and therefore show a d) Do something 2 (DS2) 2031 with fuller picture of the likely impacts on traffic London Road level-crossing closed and a levels when compared to fixed demand London Road grade-separated crossing for transport model runs, which assume that traffic demand is at a constant level. Takes the new above DM reference case A number of runs were undertaken as 2031 and codes the network to include a follows, to model ‘do nothing’, ‘do bridge or underpass on London Road. minimum’, and four ‘do something’ options: e) Do something 3a (DS3a) 2031 with a) Do nothing (DN) Ref Case 2031 with London Road level-crossing closed and London road level-crossing partially closed sustainable package option a Takes the existing reference case 2031 Takes the new above DM reference case model and recodes the network to close the 2031 and creates a representation in the London Road level-crossing for 28 minutes model of the comprehensive cycle network per hour. delivery. b) Do minimum (DM) Ref Case 2031 with London Road level-crossing closed

f) Do something 3b (DS3b) 2031 with question, using comparisons with other London Road level-crossing closed and locations which have followed approaches sustainable package option b at the equivalent level on the CAT, Takes the new above DM reference case ‘Commitment to Active Travel’, scale. The 2031 and creates a representation in the CAT scale is based on a 5-point scale, model of the comprehensive cycle network covering the different levels of commitment delivery and supportive measures. to support and create increased uptake of

For runs e and f, fixed percentage active travel. Run e assumes level ‘C’ on the reductions were applied to trips internal to scale – which is ‘comprehensive’ support, Bicester, to account for the shift of mode and run f assumes level ‘B’ on the scale – from car usage to sustainable options, since which is ‘be brave’, adopting a more the model used is not able to consider the ambitious and challenging approach. These impact of non-car modes of transport compare to a current level ‘D’ in Bicester of without external manipulation of this kind. ‘do minimum’. Level ‘A’, which is The reductions applied were 17% and 35% ‘Ambitious’ has not been modelled for the respectively, and were based on data from purposes of this OAR. Figure 19 shows the the Bicester Local Cycling and Walking anticipated trips by mode of transport in Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). These Bicester for different levels of intervention assumptions are made based upon on the CAT scale. expectations of impact of the schemes in

Figure 19: Current (D) and predicted (2031-5) number of daily trips by Bicester residents within Bicester only for different levels of Council commitment Source: Baxter 2015 for total trip rates in 2031-5 and category C split.

In addition to a comprehensive cycle speed limit was then applied to the affected network being created, network changes roads in order to deter their use. 10mph were also coded into the model for run f limits were also set on residential routes (level B on the CAT scale), as follows: offering potential access into Bicester North o Close Causeway one-way section railway station. As such, this helps identify between Church Lane and Market the need for a sustainable package of Square. measures under this option to include traffic calming measures in surrounding o Close the Chapel St / Prior Rd route to through traffic. streets, should this option be progressed. The following residential roads were all o Close London Road between Market reduced to 10mph for run f, shown in Square and Launton Road. figures 20 and 21: o Close Buckingham Road between  Woodfield Road Banbury Road and the Bicester  Blake Road North Station approach.  Brashfield Road

Upon an initial run for f, traffic was shown  Longfields to divert along a number of residential  St John’s Street roads, in order to access Bicester Village  Bell Lane station car park, which was considered  Victoria Road undesirable; to counter this effect, a 10mph

Figure 20: Residential roads with speed limit reduced to 10mph in London Road Level Crossing DS3b Scenario (affecting access to Bicester Village Station)

Figure 21: Residential roads with speed limit reduced to 10mph in London Road Level Crossing DS3b Scenario (affecting access to Bicester North railway station)

For each run, the following plots were o Delay Plots – showing the levels of produced for AM peak, PM peak and inter- traffic delay on the network peak: o Demand Flow Plots – showing the traffic flow levels on the network

o Vehicle/Capacity Percentage Plots – traffic flows from a selected link showing the percentage of vehicle location – the A41, Southbound capacity being used on the network o Delay Difference Plots (Do minimum o Select Link Analysis Plots (A41 SE vs Do Something) – showing the bound) – showing where traffic difference in delays experienced flows from a selected link location – between the DM reference case and the A41, Southeast bound each do something option

o Select Link Analysis Plots (A41 NW o Demand Difference Plot (Do bound) – showing where traffic minimum vs Do Something) – flows from a selected link location – showing the difference in demand the A41, Northwest bound between the DM reference case and each do something option o Select Link Analysis Plots (London Road Northbound) – showing where A spreadsheet of flows on particular links traffic flows from a selected link was also provided for analysis. Appendix A location – the London Road, shows a summary of these.

Northbound o Select Link Analysis Plots (A41 Southbound) – showing where

6.3 Traffic Impact of alternative strategies

The assigned flows for each of the modelled delivery of a comprehensive cycle network scenarios is given in Appendix 1. This gives with additional supportive sustainable the predicted two-way flows on selected transport measures (DS3b) scenarios. roads in Bicester in three time periods (am These values can be combined1 to give an peak, pm peak and average inter-peak) for the do nothing (DN), do minimum (DM),

South-east link road and Eastern Peripheral 1 Assumes 12 hour flow = (2 * am peak flow) + (8 * Road improvement (DS1), direct average inter-peak flow) + (2 * pm peak flow). The assumption of a factor of 2 for the peak hour flow replacement (DS2), delivery of a possibly overestimates this and gives an additional emphasis on peak hour conditions. comprehensive cycle network (DS3a), and 40

estimated 12-hour flow on each road as increases flows on Kings End and the shown in Table 5. northern end of Launton Road (by over

When the level crossing is closed the flows 20%). However, the flows in the town increase on the A41 and Charbridge Lane as centre at Market Square are reduced by traffic finds alternative routes (by about 1000 vehicles per day and at the lower end 10% each). This diverted traffic also of Launton Road by 1250 vehicles (both over 10%).

2-way flows 12 hour flow Road Name DN DM DS1 DS2 DS3a DS3b London Road (between the Launton Road junction and level crossing) 6991 2937 2933 12551 2772 2598 London Road (south of level crossing) 4019 0 0 9645 0 0 A41 west of Graven Hill/London Rd 30699 32295 23908 30238 30632 30463 Charbridge Lane (at railway bridge) 21650 23379 23932 18993 21682 21202 Launton Road (just north of junction with London Road) 9053 7759 7656 12561 7479 2768 Launton Road (at railway bridge) 13050 12696 12422 15666 11517 10701 Launton Road (north of Churchill Road) 15952 17266 16959 13754 16134 14393 A41 (between Bicester Village and Vendee Drive) 38215 38543 29557 37584 37517 35566 Market Square (both sides combined) 9229 8221 8123 9830 7934 866 Kings End east of Queens Ave 5372 6237 6249 5037 6142 1764

Table 7: Predicted 12-hour flows (PCUs) Figures in red denote the scenario which gives the highest flow on each road section, and figures in green show the lowest flow on each road section

If the improvement of the eastern Road by 100 vehicles (compared to the level perimeter road and SE Link Road takes crossing closure alone) and the traffic on place as well as the level crossing closure, Kings End and in Market Square by a similar then more traffic is attracted to the eastern amount.

route, increasing the flows on this route by If the level crossing is closed but replaced a further 600 vehicles (20%). The route is (DS2) by an off grade railway crossing well under its new capacity even with this (underpass or overbridge) on a similar line increase, however. This transfer reduces then the result would be to nearly double the traffic on the lower part of Launton the traffic on London Road (north of the

railway line) over that with the level When compared to the level crossing crossing still in operation for 32 minutes per staying partially open, the only road hour, and a x4 increase over use of the road sections with higher flows for the DS3a (less if the level crossing was completely closed. ambitious) scenario are King’s End east of Compared to the situation with the level Queen’s Avenue (by around 850 PCUs) and crossing closed there are decreases on A41 Launton Road north of Churchill Road (by a Bypass and Charbridge Lane (the latter little short of 200 PCUs), with all other being where the greatest benefits on traffic locations either virtually the same or lower. levels from DS2 would be seen, when All DS3b road sections show lower flows compared to other options) and also compared against partial opening of the decreases on the top end of Launton Road level crossing.

(north of Churchill Road) by about 3500 Whilst the benefits shown by the more PCU, with smaller decreases found on the conservative sustainable package are less A41 south of Bicester Village. However the significant than the more ambitious option traffic is increased in Market Square to (as outlined below), it does show small levels higher than would be expected with improvements in flow levels in all locations the level crossing still in operation, when compared against complete level indicative of higher flows generally in and crossing closure; none of the segments around the town centre, and on the lower considered here show flows of less than end of Launton Road where flows increase 90% of what would be expected in the by nearly 100% over the situation where complete closure scenario however, so level crossing is closed and 30% over the benefits are comparatively small. As situation where it remains partially open. outlined above, some roads fare slightly Considering the two sustainable packages worse in the CAT C intervention scenario (DS3a and DS3b), due to the calculation when compared to partial opening; that overall traffic levels will be reduced by however, London Road between Launton the measures undertaken in these Road and the level crossing shows flows scenarios, we can see generally improved, being only 40% of partial opening levels on lower flows across all of the locations this section. outlined in the table when compared to the DS3b features the most road segments complete closure of the level crossing. providing the lowest flow figures as

compared to all other scenarios, with only 4 Table 6, the only scenarios which address links not in this category – 3 of which are the capacity issues noted are DS1 and DS3b. those which are least likely to be regularly DS1 addresses capacity problems: used by internal-Bicester trips. In each of  Westbound (but not Eastbound) on these 4 cases it is still showing significantly A41 west of Graven Hill/London better flow levels than the scenario Road generating the worst flows, and not  A41, between Bicester Village and significantly different from the do-nothing Vendee Drive scenario. It therefore seems to be the Due to its nature, it also addresses capacity option which generates the best situation issues on Charbridge Lane which were not with regard to traffic flows overall. identified in Table 6. The greatest benefit with regard to traffic DS3b fully addresses capacity issues on flows under this DS3b scenario can be seen Market Square. In addition, it reduces the in Market Square, where flows are about problems at: 10% of the levels expected for closure or partial opening of the level crossing; in  Launton Road, at the railway bridge Launton Road, north of the London Road  Launton Road, north of Churchill junction, where flows are around a third of Road the levels generated under closure and  A41, between Bicester and Vendee partial opening scenarios; and in King’s End Drive

East of Queen’s Avenue (the AQMA), where All schemes, however, still entail some flows are again only around a third of those areas reaching or becoming over-capacity at generated in closure and partial opening some point during the day. When options. London Road between Launton comparing all options in terms of capacity, Road and the level crossing also shows DS2 sees the largest number of areas of significantly better flows (about one third) town with over-capacity sections of road. when compared to a partial opening It should probably be noted that the situation, though less marked benefit method of ascertaining the change in modal against complete closure. split obviously differs for the sustainable When considering road capacity problems packages when compared to the build (DS1 as outlined under DM and DN scenarios in and DS2), do nothing and do minimum

options; as such, the figures generated by (as outlined in the Census 2011 data on the model are not 100% comparing like travel to work method) does indicate that with like. The relatively high propensity supportive measures for active travel are towards active travel, though still with likely to be effective in increasing uptake considerable room for improvement, in however. Bicester when compared to other locations

6.3. Impact on objectives

The objectives were set out in Chapter 5. v.To improve connectivity between key These were: employment and residential areas and their access to the strategically i.To facilitate expansion of rail services important transport networks, including while maintaining connectivity across rail services the town and promoting town centre vitality and accessibility vi.To encourage and facilitate the efficient operation of bus services in Bicester and ii.To encourage the development of a high the surrounding area. quality, innovative and resilient integrated transport system that Taking the results of the assignments on promotes active travel provision and board each of the scenarios was assessed supports healthy place-shaping on the basis of the following scale:

iii.To promote opportunities for 1. Significantly worsen conditions pedestrians and cyclists in Bicester 2. Slightly or moderately worsen conditions

3. No impact on objective iv.To reduce carbon emissions from transport in Bicester and improve air 4. Slightly or moderately improve conditions quality in the town, particularly within 5. Wholly or significantly achieve objective the designated Air Quality Management Area The results are shown on Table 8.

DS1 DS2 DS3 a DS3 b

Objective i 4 4 4 5

Rail service expansion facilitated & town centre accessibility & vitality promoted

Objective ii 4 3 4 5

Integrated transport system supporting active travel & healthy place shaping

Objective iii 3 3 4.5 5

Promote walking and cycling opportunities

Objective iv 3 2 4 4.5

Reduce CO2 emissions and improve air quality

Objective v 4 4 4 4

Improve inter-connectivity

Objective vi 4 3 3 4

Facilitate efficient bus services

Total 22 19 23.5 27.5

Table 8: Impact of scenarios on Agreed Objectives

For Objective 1, DS1 allows for the more traffic into the town centre which will additional train services on the railway and detract from town centre vitality and reduces flows in the town centre, accessibility for other users. Some areas of promoting vitality, however reduces town also see additional delays from this connectivity across the railway for motor option, due to higher traffic flows; in vehicles. DS2 maintains this connectivity, particular, in comparison to other DS in fact improving on it, but encourages options, Market Square sees additional

delays, as does the northern end of the sustainable modes of transport central corridor, reducing the benefit of (particularly walking and cycling) have additional accessibility by vehicle. been put in place in highstreets and town

DS3a and DS3b both allow for the centres elsewhere, businesses have additional train services on the railway and benefited from increased patronage, due reduce car traffic into the town centre, to the higher levels of footfall generated. particularly and quite significantly in the For example, in Dublin, the trial case of DS3b, thus supporting vitality. The pedestrianisation of streets around Grafton initiatives within these packages will St in 2020 led to increases of between 40% significantly support accessibility by and 100% in business, based on the results sustainable modes of transport, especially of a Dublin City council survey of 292 ii bicycle (albeit that some buses will require affected businesses , a result which has re-routing due to closure of London Road similarly been seen in multiple locations Level Crossing – this should be balanced, across the world. In addition, the reduced however, by journey time savings levels of delays seen in DS3 options within especially in the case of DS3b). Whilst town (especially DS3b) when compared to connectivity across the railway for motor the ‘do minimum’ scenario will also serve vehicles is reduced in both cases however, to support the local economy to some it is worth noting that where initiatives degree (see figure 22). reducing vehicle use in favour of

Figure 22: Delay difference between the ‘do minimum’ and DS3b options, PM peak For Objective 2, under DS1 the addition of Because overall car traffic flows are the new road improves the resilience of reduced, overall resilience should also be the town’s network and through attracting improved or remain consistent, despite traffic away from the town centre will help closure of the level crossing with no direct promote active travel within town. DS2 or alternative route replacement, although will replace an existing road, with some for DS3a the benefit is unlikely to be large increased resilience through the removal enough to more than cancel out the loss of and replacement of the level crossing but resilience because of the level crossing will discourage active travel through the closure, since flows are still relatively high increased traffic in the town centre. DS3 in some locations. options both encourage active travel and For objective 3, the opportunities for active thus healthy place shaping both through travel are improved (marginally) by DS1 the measures within the packages, and via due to reduced traffic in town, as described the reduced traffic levels generated by the above; however this is cancelled out by the improvements to the sustainable transport severance caused for pedestrians and network, especially for option DS3b.

cyclists by the closure of the level crossing. DS2 would also have the disbenefit of For DS2 the opposite is true, since causing air quality reductions near to opportunities are improved through the businesses and residences, especially in the replacement of the level crossing, while instance of a tunnel, due to potentially reduced through the additional motor significant levels of construction dust, traffic in the town. Both DS3 options and which can have marked impacts on air particularly option DS3b, promote walking quality. The reduced overall car usage and especially cycling, given the nature of levels generated by DS3 options on the the interventions, therefore meeting this other hand, will help to reduce carbon objective closely. emissions and improve air quality. DS3b

For objective 4, DS1 reduces traffic in the sees the lowest traffic flows of any of the rest of the town centre but increases it on options for the AQMA. Some embodied Kings End (the AQMA). DS2 has the carbon and construction worsening air opposite impacts, but generally would have quality might be expected for DS3 options, slightly reduced carbon emissions through but to a significantly lesser degree than the allowing more direct motorised journeys other options. (though these would include people For Objective 5, DS1 would offer slight routing through town, rather than going benefits by taking north-south through around it, which is not optimal); this may traffic outside the town while DS2 allows however be reduced or negated by for more direct access to the employment increased congestion on the more direct areas east of Launton Road. DS3 options routes through town. There is also improve interconnectivity by bicycle in potential for the increased traffic levels particular, by creating a consistent and caused in DS2, on streets around the joined up cycle network between all areas AQMA to create new AQMAs, even though of Bicester and nearby villages. DS3b, the existing AQMA sees a small benefit in however, slightly reduces inter- traffic levels. It should also be noted that connectivity by car, since various roads are both options DS1 and DS2 would involve a closed to motorised traffic under this greater degree of embodied carbon in scenario. This may, however, serve to creating the infrastructure involved than improve bus interconnectivity by improving the DS3 options would. Construction of service reliability to some degree, and

making bus a more attractive option to closure method which would allow buses users. It should be noted, however that in to enter (e.g. a bus gate) would be needed, all options where the level crossing is and has been assumed for the purposes of closed (i.e. all but DS2), bus services along this assessment in scoring options; if a full London Road will be disrupted and require closure were put in place here, the public alternative routes to be identified. transport benefit would be significantly

For Objective 6, as identified above, buses eroded, especially given the closure of using London Road would need to be re- London Road as well. DS3b would be the routed for all options but DS2, meaning most likely option involving closure of the some disruption in all other cases. On the level crossing to absorb changes to bus other hand however, DS1 removes traffic routes required without journey time from the town centre, making bus disruption, since it sees the best delay operations likely to be more attractive, reductions within Bicester of all the while DS2’s increased levels of traffic in scenarios. By promoting a more conducive town may have the opposite impact. DS3a environment for walkers and reducing would likely have some positive and some traffic levels, DS3 options should also make negative impacts on bus operations – the it more attractive for people to use public closure of London Road will reduce transport. connectivity by bus, whilst on the other This shows that of the build options, the hand, the reduction of traffic in town Eastern Perimeter Road option more closely should bring about some small journey meets the objectives for Bicester than the time savings, likely negating each underpass/overbridge option, but that other.DS3b should have more of a positive neither option would be likely to move the impact for buses, due to more significantly town far towards meeting its overall reduced traffic levels and roads being objectives. On the other hand, the closed to cars, providing an overall small sustainable transport options are generally benefit when off-set against London Road’s both more beneficial in helping to achieve closure; the Buckingham Road, which is the objectives outlined, with the more also closed under this scenario, has buses ambitious package going further towards running along it; to maintain the benefit for meeting them. public transport under this option, a road

6.4. EAST Assessment

EAST (Early Assessment and Sifting Tool) The results of the EAST assessment on the is a Department for Transport tool options under consideration are shown in designed to allow options to be assessed Table 9. Between the two major build when they are at an early stage of options, DS1 and DS2, DS1 has the overall development and full data are not better outcomes. It is possible however, available to allow a meaningful that a business case could be made for assessment to be made using the more either option, though it would be more developed WebTAG tools. challenging for DS2, given the low value

The results of an EAST assessment of the for money and higher environmental alternative strategies are given in impact; it would likely depend on the Appendix 3, where explanations of the funding pot available, however and links scorings are provided, and the scores are to key strategic matters such as major summarised in Table 9. The EAST development coming forwards to make assessment mimics WebTAG by splitting the case more viable for this option. . In the impact of a scheme into 5 cases general, the DS3 options both perform (Strategic, Economic, Managerial, better than the major build options, Financial and Commercial). especially DS3b – business cases would be easier to produce for these options, or Each case is further split into separate potentially for combining one of these categories where a score (usually 1-5) is options with DS1. given according to the answers to particular, relevant questions. In most The Strategic Case is roughly similar instances, 1 is given to a scheme with a between the two build options; the major severe adverse impact; 5 is given to a difference is in consensus, where the scheme with a high positive outcome. overpass/underbridge option is likely to Where they do not already reflect this face concerns about the traffic impact on pattern, scores have been adjusted in London Road, Launton Road and town Table 9 accordingly. centre. There is also a less good fit to

objectives – both wider government environmental and economic benefits are objectives and those set locally by generally better. DS3 sustainable package stakeholders for DS2 than DS1. When options again both perform generally considering DS3 options, the strategic better in the economic case; in particular, case is the strongest for DS3b. Scale of value for money is very good, based on impact is the most significant difference BCR calculated for a sub-section of the between DS3 options, with DS3b having scheme. DS3b scores better than option considerably greater positive impacts on DS3a on local environment impact, since it traffic levels than all other options. It has a greater impact on reducing traffic, should again be noted that there are and is very beneficial to the AQMA differences in the methods of calculating compared to DS3a; and similarly for carbon modal split between options, however. emissions, since a greater number of

In the Economic Case the results are likely people will be travelling sustainably in to be similar for the major build options, option DS3b. with DS1 performing generally slightly better overall. In particular, the DS1 option scores better on economic growth (because it would help meet development needs and improve the overall network resilience to a greater degree than DS2) and local environment impact (because it helps to separate noise and air pollution from where people live, whereas DS2 would impact more on households and businesses). BCRs have been previously calculated for DS2 variants, showing likely poor value for money. BCRs have not been calculated for DS1, so direct comparison is not possible, but it is likely that value for money would be better, since the option is likely to be cheaper than DS2, and

Scenario Strategic Economic Managerial Financial Commercial Total

jectives * * b Scale of of Scale impact Transport objectives Other o on Consensus outcomes Economic Growth Carbon emissions Socio- distributional Local environment Well-being for Value Money Timetable** Acceptability Feasibility Qualityof Evidence Affordability Cost Capital ** Cost Revenue ** Risk Cost Flexibility

DS1 2 3 3 4 5 3 4 2 4 3 1 3 4 3 3 2 5 1 2 57

DS2 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 1 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 5 1 3 48

DS3a 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 5 69

DS3b 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 5 2 3 4 3 4 2.5 4 2 5 72.5

Table 9: Results of EAST assessment (higher score = good) * - for Value for Money the score is inverted from EAST (1=5, 2=4, 3=3) **- for timetable, the score given = (7- EAST score) *** - for cost, the score given = ((10- EAST score)/2)

In the Managerial Case between build although this is the least certain aspect of options, the overbridge/underpass option is the assessment. This is because estimates marginally better in terms of the time to for most option elements are based on construction (though this benefit for DS2 figures from a few years back or on proxy could be eroded if there are engineering scheme figures and do not include challenges in the instance of an underbridge maintenance figures, which could potentially in particular, e.g. due to flooding), while the be high, especially in the case of a tunnel perimeter road option has the advantage in choice for DS2 (already the more costly terms of feasibility (including feasibility risk, option than the bridge), mitigation, land or since there is a higher risk involved in enforcement costs. Cost risk has therefore possible engineering complexities with the been designated as being high for both build underbridge option). The sustainable options, especially because there is also package options score marginally better potential for rail disruption requiring than the build options in this category. mitigation for DS2. For DS3 options, the Public acceptability is highest for DS3a, since scores are generally higher than for the build it does not entail the more politically options. Again, there are uncertainties with difficult elements that are included in option the costings, since they are based on a b (road closures in addition to London Road, combination of scheme proxies and old for example), and recent public surveys in costings from several years previous, and do Bicester suggest generally supportive not include maintenance, land, mitigation or attitudes to improving cycling infrastructure. enforcement costs. Some elements of the These two schemes also require less scheme are also not fully costed up, due to significant build work, so are less disruptive the need for additional surveying work on than DS1 and DS2 (albeit that any disruption Bicester’s cycling infrastructure caused would be more widely spread around requirements. However, both sustainable Bicester). options are likely to be considerably more affordable than build options, with DS3a In the Financial Case, the two major build obviously the cheaper of the 2 (since DS3b options are very similar, with DS1 likely to be includes all elements of DS3a plus additional less expensive if compared to a tunnel DS2 measures). It should also be noted that option (though probably slightly more some quite significant progress towards expensive in the instance of a bridge), either of the two packages of sustainable

measures could be put in place with minimal 40% risk contingency was included in the cost, given that much is around re- costs for infrastructure elements of all designation of road space, road marking and options within the estimates originally signage improvements and promotional provided. In addition, since the needs for the campaigns. Cost risk is not as high as for 2 sustainable options are not fully scoped as build options, since the figures are generally noted above, 40% has been added on to the lower and likely required mitigation cost estimates for the creation of a cycle measures should not be as significant, network in each case. In all cases, uplift for though risk is still quite high, due to the lack inflation was applied to bring estimates up of estimates for portions of the work to 2020 levels. The costings used for the needed. A 44% optimism bias uplift was options are summarised in Table 10. applied to the costs for all of the options; a

Option Assumed Cost DS1 £74M (£40.5M SE link road; £33.5M EPR) DS2 £70M (bridge) or £100.5M (tunnel) DS3a £22M DS3b £32M

Table 10: Option Cost Summary

In the Commercial Case, DS1 would offer scheme in each case, this would erode the more flexibility in its operation than DS2, benefits, and reducing DS3b would because of the potential for phasing of link essentially entail instigating DS3a. The road and Eastern Peripheral Road sustainable packages also have the benefit improvements. DS3 options both offer of potential income generation through considerable flexibility due to their nature as enforcement of road closures and reduced packages of measures, meaning phasing and speed limits, though it is possible prioritisation could be applied. It should be enforcement cost could cancel out this noted that although there would, of course, benefit. be potential to reduce down the total

7. Overall Assessment

The overall assessment points to DS3b as of these routes are still at or over being the most favourable option on the capacity at peak times majority of fronts – it has the strongest  Car and other motorised vehicle scores overall in the EAST, objectives and severance is not addressed traffic impact analyses. In particular, it  Politically, there may be some scores strongly in terms of: challenging elements, for example,

 Reducing traffic impact in town, around road closures and tighter speed including significant improvements in limit restrictions, which may be the AQMA unpopular with drivers  Fitting well with the objectives set and On the other hand, overall assessment wider government objectives, including suggests the least favourable option to be environmental, health and social DS2 in most areas. In particular, it brings  Economic impact, with improved the following challenges:

journey time reliability and improved  Increased traffic levels in town, connectivity for active travel modes, especially on London and Launton supporting growth Roads  Cost, with the scheme being relatively  Least good fit against the objectives set inexpensive in comparison to build and wider government objectives, with options (though more expensive than environmental challenges, both in the less ambitious sustainable package), carbon emissions and local environment with potential for income generation impacts through enforcement of closures and  Previous BCR calculations have shown speed limit reductions (depending on this option to have a low expected value cost of enforcement actions) for money Elements where it falls short, or which  It is the highest cost option in the would need consideration or management instance of a tunnel, with an attendant are: high cost risk due to uncertainties and

 Traffic flows on peripheral routes are likely engineering challenges, especially largely unaffected, meaning that some

in the case of an underbridge, plus mitigate against the impact of the potential disruption to rail London Road closure

This option is not, however, entirely  It has a negative impact on the negative, with the following benefits: environment in certain areas, including increasing traffic flows in the AQMA,  It is the only option to directly address and has a high potential for the severance issue caused by the level archaeological and ecological impact crossing closure (including to buses during construction routing along London Road)  It is relatively high cost, with a high cost  There is potential economic benefit risk due to mitigation requirements and from keeping the more direct transport land acquisition (not covered in cost links open estimates) The other two options sit between these DS3a generally has the same positive and two in terms of the benefits and challenges negative attributes as DS3b, but to a lesser they bring. DS1 has the following points in and greater degree respectively in some its favour: cases. The main differences between DS3a  Reduced traffic flows on the A41, and DS3b are: improving journey times and reliability,  Whilst DS3b is more favourable in most with positive economic impacts; respects, DS3a is likely to be more potential longer term for the section of publicly acceptable, since it does not the A41 which would be bypassed by entail the same degree of road closures the link road to be downgraded and requires fewer reduced speed limits  Increased network resilience due to  Since DS3a entails fewer measures, it additional road and capacity would be faster and simpler to improvements, also reduces delays implement, as well as being the  Comparatively high practical feasibility cheapest option (barring mitigation requirements being  The positive impacts of reduced traffic un-defined) levels due to modal shift are DS1 has the following main challenges: considerably lower for DS3a, meaning it

 It does not achieve a good scale of also scores less well against the impact against the specific objective to objectives to support sustainable travel,

environment and air quality, and the The following table 11 outlines the key scale of impact is much lower positive and negative aspects of each of the options:

Option Benefits Challenges

 DS1  Reduced traffic on A41 Increased traffic in AQMA   Good for economic growth Low scale of impact against set objective  Good wellbeing and socio-  distributional impacts Potential for archaeological and ecological impact, and need for flood  Relatively high practical feasibility mitigation measures compared to DS2  Inflexible option beyond potential  Improved network resilience and phasing of EPR & SE link road capacity  Relatively high cost and high cost risk

 DS2  Directly addresses vehicle severance Increased traffic flows in town, esp. (including buses) Launton and London Roads   Some positive economic benefits, due Poorest fit with objectives set to reduced severance and direct  Negative environmental impact, due access to town for vehicles to increased traffic levels, noise and carbon  Potential for increased traffic incidents  Poor value for money  Highest cost option, with high cost risk, esp. for a tunnel option  Inflexible option beyond choice of tunnel vs bridge

 DS3a  Small reductions in traffic in town Scale of impact is relatively low, so unlikely to fully address the problem  Positive environmental impact (air

quality, noise, carbon etc), to a lesser  Little traffic impact outside Bicester degree than b town  Positive health, wellbeing and socio-  Does not directly address vehicle distributional impact, to a lesser severance from crossing closure degree than b  Needs soft measure and political  Most affordable option support to achieve modal shift  Good value for money predicted, to a lesser degree than b  Good economic impact, to a lesser  Requires enforcement measures, to a degree than b lesser degree than b  Good fit with set objectives  Relatively high practical feasibility  Flexible option  Income generation potential, to a lesser degree than b  DS3b  Significantly reduced traffic in town Little traffic impact outside Bicester town  Positive environmental impact (air  quality, noise, carbon etc) Politically challenging aspects of scheme (e.g. road closures, and speed  Positive health, wellbeing and socio- restrictions) distributional impact  Does not directly address vehicle  Affordable, to a lesser degree than a severance from crossing closure  Good value for money  Would need to be fully supported by  Good economic impact modal shift campaign and politically  Excellent fit with set objectives to gain level of benefit projected  Relatively high practical feasibility  Requires enforcement measures  Flexible option  Income generation potential

Table 11: Summary of benefits and challenges of the options

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

This initial analysis of the options under capacity improvements should also help to consideration suggests that DS3b is the minimise impact of increased traffic. There most favourable, and that DS2 would entail would be a potential risk that a road the most significant challenges, particularly scheme building capacity could reduce the in the instance of a tunnel option (excepting modal shift impact of the sustainable public acceptability). DS1, whilst bringing package, but in this instance this is, again, benefits to the town’s peripheral routes, likely to be minimised by the location of the does not fully address the objective, and road schemes impacting more significantly DS3a has only a relatively small-scale on external-Bicester trips which are not impact on the problem caused by the level addressed by DS3b. Within this analysis it crossing closure. However, the analysis has would also be helpful to consider the two only considered the options in isolation, constituent elements of DS1 in isolation (i.e. and has not reviewed potential impacts of the South East Link Road provision and combined options. Eastern Peripheral road capacity

Considering the drawbacks identified of the improvements). Access to Launton Road most favourable option, it may be beneficial for vehicular traffic approaching from the to consider the combined impact of DS3b South side of Bicester being a challenge and DS1 options in the next stages of caused by London Road crossing closure analysis; these two options may (especially given the existence of car parks complement each other, since DS1 brings and businesses in this location), it may be benefit to the peripheral routes which DS3b that the benefit of the capacity does not, and improves network resilience, improvements on Charbridge Lane alone whilst DS3b addresses the traffic levels in alongside DS3b would be sufficient to town which are not improved by DS1. Of alleviate the vehicular access challenges, course, the road closures included in DS3b whilst maintaining the modal shift benefits. could impact on the traffic improvements Since the severance issues caused by the shown in DS1, as additional vehicles may closure of the level crossing are most route around town instead of through it, significant for active travel modes, due to but the overall traffic reductions should the times involved in re-routing creating temper this potential impact, and the longer journeys, there is a need for any

option to provide direct, attractive and high make estimates which may be quality access for cyclists and pedestrians inaccurate for more detailed analysis along this route.  Maintenance, mitigation, land and

It is also worth noting that given that enforcement costs need to be Bicester’s LCWIP has been endorsed by considered, as they have not been cabinet, it would be prudent to consider the covered at all in some cases combined impact of DS3a with any other (maintenance, enforcement and options being progressed to the next stages mitigation) or fully in others (land) of assessment. However, it should also be  Consideration of likely income noted that DS2 is incompatible with generation from enforcement of road elements of the DS3a and DS3b options, closures and speed limits, and this since both entail closure of the level compared against enforcement costs crossing on London Road; as such, options  Value for money estimates should be would need to be tweaked to allow revisited based on fuller information compatibility if DS2 is progressed further. The next stages of work should also include To support this, it would be helpful to a greater degree of stakeholder consider prioritisation of the cycle network engagement, including local businesses and and additional measures planned within the residents who have not been consulted on two DS3 options, to assess likely impact on the options. modal shift projections if London Road At this stage, it seems prudent to progress Level crossing is replaced rather than being all 3 options and their sub-options to the closed. This prioritisation would also next stages of work, rather than to rule any support phasing of build on these options if out, since the combination of different only partial funding is initially obtainable. options could help to temper the negative The uncertainties or gaps identified in this impacts of the less favourable options when analysis should also be addressed as far as analysed together. As noted earlier in the possible in the next stages of work. In document, further assessment should also particular: re-examine the policy context for the

 Fuller cost estimates should be options, given the changes which have produced for options being progressed, come about since initial objectives were set, as proxies and old costings were used to and the anticipated additional policy and

strategy documents during the first half of analysed, so it is therefore recommended 2021, at national, regional and county that this be considered before the more levels. This may influence which options detailed analysis is undergone, as far as and option combinations are more fully possible within the timescales involved.

Appendix 1: Predicted flows from Bicester Traffic Model

Appendix 2: Do nothing Demand Flow

Do nothing - AM PEAK

Do nothing - Inter-Peak

Do nothing – PM Peak

Appendix 3 – EAST summaries

i Bicester Profile – 2011 Census (Oxford City Council) ii https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0730/1156506-dublin-pedestrianisation/