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 2 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 3 Bicester town centre London Road Level Crossing Figure 1: Area of Interest 4 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 5 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). 6 • 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. 7 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 8 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, 9 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.