Traffic filters, currently set to be introduced in Oxford in August 2026, are not physical barriers, but Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which will fine anyone that drives through them without a permit or exemption.

As it stands, from August 2026, six new cameras will be installed across the city along key arterial roads:

• St Cross Road

• Thames Street

• Hythe Bridge Street

• St Clement’s Street

• Marston Ferry Road

• Hollow Way

Hours of operation

• St Cross Road, Thames Street, Hythe Bridge Street and St Clement’s Street cameras will be in operation every day, 7am–7pm

• Marston Ferry Road & Hollow Way cameras will be in operation Monday to Saturday, 7–9am and 3–6pm

At these locations during operational hours, only approved vehicles (buses, taxis, emergency services, blue badge holders and some business vehicles) will be allowed through without needing a permit.

Permits and Passes

Residents in Oxford’s permit area will be allowed up to 100 day passes per year as it stands (though this is under review and not guaranteed); those outside get only 25. Once you’ve used them up, you will be automatically fined like anyone else: £70 every time you go through them.

These cameras will affect the everyday journeys of residents, tradespeople, carers, and small business customers. There are no new, better alternatives offered - just punishment for doing what used to be normal: efficiently getting from A to B.

Displacement, Not Reduction

The council claims these filters will reduce traffic and improve air quality. In reality, they are more likely to displace congestion and emissions into residential side streets and the few arterial roads into the city still open. Those who can’t afford the fines or don’t qualify for exemptions will simply be rerouted - not removed from the roads.

The Bottom Line

This isn’t about clean air or active travel. If it were, we’d see a fully subsidised Park & Ride, improved and affordable public transport, and better walking and cycling infrastructure.

We would not see a cheap enforcement model masked as environmental reform.

Instead, we’re being asked to accept a city divided by camera checkpoints, a system that monetises access to public roads, and a future where policy is made by punishing the many to serve the optics of the few.

Oxford deserves better. So do the people who live, work, care, and trade here.

One of the most common defences of these new planned restrictions is:

“We already have a bus gate (the same as a traffic filter in practical terms) on the High Street, and it works fine. This is just more of the same.”

This argument is as simplistic as it is disingenuous.

A False Equivalence

The High Street bus gate is a specific, targeted intervention:

• It addresses a single, narrow, pedestrian-heavy route in Oxford’s historic centre.

• It was implemented with clear rationale and public understanding.

• It functions within a context that most residents can reasonably accept.

But that does not mean that replicating the model sixfold across Oxford will produce the same results.

The idea that “you tolerated one, so you’ll tolerate six more” is policy by attrition - death by a thousand cuts - and it is ludicrous.

When Oxfordshire County Council’s Cabinet approved the traffic filter policy on 29th November 2022, the decision was backed by a coalition of Labour, Green, and Liberal Democrat councillors. In early 2024, councillors from all three parties then voted through a County Council budget that included funding for the traffic filter programme. No matter what’s said on the doorstep, voting for the budget is voting for the policy.

Labour originally supported the scheme, now some are backtracking: the Labour Party voted the scheme through, but now - just in time for elections - some candidates avoid mentioning it altogether. Others have started to express concern, but conveniently omit their party’s track record of support.

The Green Party has consistently supported the scheme, but not transparently. Their latest leaflet in Parks Division glosses over the detail, saying they are “supporting measures to make our buses more efficient, including the introduction of traffic filters.”

The Liberal Democrats have been among the most vocal proponents. Led in particular by Cllr Andrew Gant (Cabinet Member for Transport Management), they talk in terms of long-term visions, but avoid the hard truths and ignore the real-world impact this scheme will have on people’s lives.

The Independent Oxford Alliance: a real alternative

Independent candidates in the Independent Oxford Alliance have opposed the traffic filters from the start - consistently, constructively, and transparently. Not with empty slogans, but with detailed scrutiny, real community engagement, and a clear vision for practical, inclusive alternatives.

As more people realise the real-world impact of this scheme, support for the IOA is growing fast, as a movement built on independence, integrity, and local knowledge - not party lines.

Oxford’s traffic filters are being promoted as green progress, but they are nothing of the sort. Council policies are meant to pursue aims in a way that is proportionate and minimally disruptive - seeking the least harmful means to achieve a given goal. But this is a sledgehammer solution to a problem that doesn’t even always exist. Traffic filters will worsen congestion, increase net emissions, discriminate against low-income and rural residents, cripple small businesses, and erode public trust in our local government. It is a poorly planned, deeply unfair, and fundamentally undemocratic policy - one that imposes restrictions without providing alternatives, punishes the very people it claims to support, and risks real, irreversible harm to Oxford’s economy and community life.

The council has been trying to force this policy through for some time now, including by means of a sham consultation that asked leading questions and very much gave the impression that the outcome had already been decided. Indeed, the council leader was quoted on 6 September 2022 - just one day into the consultation period - saying "They are going to happen." Then, on 29 November, the cabinet duly formally voted the scheme through with almost no substantive changes. Residents were sent a clear message that their input was irrelevant. They were not going to listen. The outcome was inevitable.

This may follow procedure – but it flies in the face of democratic values like transparency, fairness, and public trust. Decisions were effectively made before the public had a chance to weigh in, objections were waved away, and there’s still no clear plan for what happens if it all goes wrong - that’s not consultation, it’s rubber-stamping.

Those who have raised objections are not engaged with in good faith - they’re simply told they’re wrong. At the Full Council meeting on 9 July 2024, I raised concerns directly with Cllr Andrew Gant about the potential negative impact of traffic filters on small businesses. His response dismissed the possibility outright and failed to address the specific concerns raised. There was no acknowledgement that things might not go to plan, or that unintended consequences might arise. Instead, the message was clear: the filters will work, full stop. Worst case scenarios aren’t being planned for, because the council insists they won’t happen. That’s not how real democratic planning works - it’s a failure of public accountability.

Now, many Labour candidates are trying to give the impression they’re against the traffic filters, despite being part of the coalition that voted the scheme through in 2022 - and then voted through a budget in February 2024 that earmarked millions for traffic filters.

The Greens and Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, talk vaguely about clean air, reduced congestion and quicker buses - but fail to address the fall-out this scheme will likely have on the small businesses they claim to support. In their latest leaflet delivered to me just days ago, the Greens refer to the traffic filters as "measures to make our buses more efficient". (For reference, council consultants think that this scheme will improve bus journeys by 10%. Is the possible decimation of city centre trade worth it for a bus journey that takes 9 minutes instead of 10 minutes?)

I am not anti-environment (quite the opposite) or anti-cycling. I’m a cyclist. I don’t own a car. I run a local business and I’m someone who believes in practical, fair, and transparent decision-making. I’m standing for election because Oxford deserves better than this.

The council claims traffic filters will reduce congestion, lower emissions, and improve bus journey times. And yet:

• Congestion is not constant in Oxford. It exists in certain areas during school run hours and rush hours, but otherwise is often non-existent! This scheme applies blanket, punitive restrictions for a problem that isn’t always there.

• Emissions will rise elsewhere. Drivers who need to continue to access the city by car will simply take longer, slower, more congested and polluting routes around the city to do so. Meanwhile, many would-be visitors to the city will simply go elsewhere - likely further afield and thus involving a more polluting journey. Pollution won’t disappear - it will be displaced.

• Cycling won’t be made safer. There’s no new infrastructure. No resurfaced roads. No better signage or protection.

This policy ignores the reality of so many people’s daily lives.

• Parents juggling school runs. With no proper school shuttle services from Park & Ride sites or transport hubs, many families have no choice but to drive. The scheme offers no realistic alternative for parents managing drop-offs before work.

• Carers travelling across the city. Paid professionals have already thankfully been accounted for with exemptions, but what of the many unpaid or informal carers supporting elderly parents, disabled friends, or vulnerable neighbours? They often make multiple trips each day, at irregular times, sometimes with equipment or shopping in tow. Public transport is rarely practical. It’s not for the council to decide who counts as a carer - caregiving responsibilities are not always formal, but they are essential.

• Tradespeople moving tools and stock. Many local businesses and sole traders use personal vehicles not registered to a company. After I raised this directly with council officers, they conceded such vehicles might qualify for exemption - but only if carrying “sizeable stock.” That’s a ridiculous qualifier. What about service-based businesses? Plumbers, electricians, mobile therapists… who may not carry stock but still rely on their vehicle every day. Are they less deserving of access? This policy shows little understanding of how small businesses actually operate.

• Elderly and disabled residents. Not everyone who struggles with mobility has a Blue Badge. They will categorically be negatively impacted by this scheme. And even those who do have a Blue Badge may face extra walking if they can’t be dropped close to their destination because of increased congestion on the remaining arterial roads still open to drivers! A scheme that makes basic access harder is not inclusive.

• Night shift workers. Many shift workers start or finish during the restricted hours planned. For them, public transport often doesn’t align with their hours, and driving is the only viable option. Forcing them onto circuitous routes adds time, cost, and stress to already demanding jobs. I have spoken to many NHS workers who have already said that they will leave Oxford if this scheme goes ahead as a result

• Personal safety after dark. If Park & Ride and rail are meant to become the default for visitors looking to access the city from the wider county, many people - particularly women and other vulnerable users - will be expected to walk through car parks and along isolated routes late at night. That’s not a fair or safe expectation, and it’s not something the scheme has properly accounted for.

• Rural residents with no buses at all. Many villages in Oxfordshire have limited - or no - bus services, particularly in the evenings. For residents in these areas, driving into Oxford isn’t a convenience - it’s a necessity. And if someone is already driving 10 or 15 miles from a rural village, the extra cost of continuing a mile or two into the city centre is negligible compared to the cost of a Park & Ride fare. Without full subsidy, the Park & Ride simply isn’t a sensible or attractive alternative. Astonishingly, a senior council officer actually told me directly that they don’t want to fully subsidise the Park & Ride, because they’re worried rural residents might actually use it. Instead, they want people to board a bus “at source” from their village. That view isn’t just unworkable, it’s delusional. Most villages don’t have reliable bus services at all, and even where they exist, they often don’t run at the right times for work, leisure, or evening visits. Rural residents aren’t going to tolerate a convoluted, expensive, and slow journey to visit Oxford. They’ll go elsewhere - somewhere more accessible, more welcoming, and more practical. If this policy goes ahead, Oxford won’t just be harder to reach. It will stop being worth the effort. 

• And let’s not forget those locked into their circumstances. Many residents are tied into long-term car finance agreements or leases. Others are committed to mortgages or rental contracts in areas poorly served by public transport. Some are constrained by fixed job locations, school placements, or caregiving responsibilities that make switching travel mode or altering their routine impossible. These aren’t poor choices—they're the realities of daily life. This scheme punishes them.

It is not the council’s place to dictate how people travel. The council’s role isn’t to force people to change. It’s to make better choices easy, accessible, and attractive - so people want to take them. That’s how lasting change happens.

Faster buses?

Some councillors claim that traffic filters will make buses quicker, which will make them sufficiently attractive that people will start to use them instead of their car. But that misunderstands the problem. People don’t avoid buses because they’re a minute or two slower. They avoid them because they don’t run at the right times, don’t reach where they need to go quickly enough, or aren’t affordable - especially for families or those making multiple trips a day. A slightly faster bus won’t help someone who needs to carry equipment, travel late at night, pick up their child after school, or chain multiple errands in one journey. For many, the bus isn’t a bad option - it’s not an option at all. Making it 10% quicker doesn’t change that.

I will do everything I can to stop this scheme from going ahead.

If the council really wants to reduce car use, ease congestion, and support greener travel, there are better ways to do it - fairer, more inclusive, and more effective approaches that don’t punish residents, businesses, or visitors.

Low-cost, inclusive improvements:

• Free cycle training. Many London boroughs have done this successfully - I myself took advantage of a similar scheme when I lived there and it was incredibly helpful, encouraging me to cycle safely and confidently, which I wouldn’t have done otherwise. Oxfordshire should follow suit and make cycle proficiency training free and accessible to all.

• Support for low-income residents to access bikes. The Cycle to Work scheme doesn’t work for everyone and not all private companies provide it. The council could provide their own scheme, making active travel a realistic option for all.

Making cycling genuinely viable and safe:

• Fix the weakest links first. Cycle routes are only as safe as their most dangerous sections. Junctions like The Plain and others around the city need urgent attention.

• Repair, improve and extend the cycling infrastructure. Repaint faded lanes, resurface unsafe routes, and install more protected or separated lanes where possible. Add safe, secure bike parking - not just in the city centre, but around schools, shops, and key destinations.

• Open up college parks to cyclists. Many colleges own large green spaces that currently block direct east–west walking and cycling routes. By working collaboratively to allow through-access - especially for cyclists - we could reduce pressure on main roads, ease congestion, and improve safety without expensive new infrastructure.

Improve transport integration and family access:

• Create proper last-mile solutions. Improve access from Park & Ride and train stations with safe, connected cycle routes. Add secure storage for bikes and prams so mixed-mode travel is viable.

• Trial school shuttle services from Park & Ride sites. Families often have no alternative to driving during the school run. School-specific shuttles could dramatically reduce peak-time congestion and offer a safer, greener alternative.

• Introduce hop-on, hop-off bus fares. A daily fare cap isn’t the same. We need short, affordable journeys that allow residents to make quick, everyday trips without being penalised for changing buses.

Focus on affordability and fairness:

• Fully subsidise Park & Ride. At current pricing, it’s often cheaper—and more convenient—for rural and suburban drivers to go all the way into the city. Make it free, and people will use it.

• Delay the Zero Emission Zone (ZEZ). Until electric vehicle infrastructure is more robust and affordable options are in place, this policy risks penalising people for circumstances they can’t yet change.

And if all else fails…

• Introduce a time-based congestion charge. As a last resort, a peak-time-only congestion charge could help manage traffic without restricting movement entirely. Essential workers should be exempt, and any revenue should be reinvested into public and active transport.

Emily Scaysbrook:

“I’m the owner of Hoyle’s, a traditional games shop on the High Street. We’ve been trading for 25 years.

Councillor Gant, you’ve previously said that you believe there will be an 'adjustment period' after the filters are installed, and that modal shift will take time. It is exactly for this reason that retail businesses like mine are terrified.

At present, it appears these filters will be introduced later this year—right in the critical pre-Christmas trading period. For the sake of just two months, we’re facing the very real prospect of that ‘adjustment period’ severely damaging or even decimating independent businesses in the city centre.

So my question is this: given that context, and the risk that many of us believe to be real, why will you not agree to delay the introduction of traffic filters until at least January 2025—regardless of when Botley Road reopens?

Thank you."

Response from Councillor Gant:

"Yes, thank you very much. And thank you for the question, Ms Scaysbrook.

I do not accept the premise that the traffic filters will inevitably damage business. As has been stated in many responses to similar concerns, these measures are designed to enhance the business environment. There is substantial empirical evidence—both from Oxford and elsewhere—that increasing the attractiveness of the retail environment can, and indeed does, benefit businesses.

So I respectfully disagree with the basic assumption behind your question, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify that.

The traffic filters are intended to make Oxford a better place—for residents, students, visitors, and the business environment as well.

As for the timing, we have always said that the filters will go live when Network Rail finishes its work. As is often the case, there are numerous pressures—many from outside bodies—affecting how these schemes are coordinated.

That is the cabinet’s agreement, and that is what we intend to follow.

Once the scheme is launched, it will be fully monitored and evaluated from day one. Feedback will be collected, and consultation will remain open, so that we can assess the real-time effects as they unfold."

—

Although, thankfully, the Botley Road did not - and still has not - reopened, the principles at stake remain unchanged.

Councillor Gant’s response shows a troubling lack of critical thinking and economic foresight. His refusal to even entertain the possibility of short-term harm to independent businesses - despite openly previously acknowledging an expected “adjustment period” - is not just inconsistent, it’s deeply irresponsible.

When residents and business owners raise legitimate concerns - such as the risk of introducing traffic filters during the most important retail trading period of the year - they deserve more than vague reassurances and tired platitudes.

This exchange illustrates the deeper issue at the heart of our current council leadership: a rigid, top-down approach that prefers sticking to predetermined timelines over listening, adapting, and governing with empathy and evidence.

If elected, I will work to deliver a council that is transparent, responsive, and intellectually rigorous - a council that treats consultation as a meaningful part of the process of change, not a box to be ticked. We need leadership that listens first, acts with care, and values the experience of those who live and work in this city.

This pertains to the traffic filter scheme specifically. For reference, I’m a local business owner. I’m also a green party member, I cycle everywhere and I don’t own a car. I am not part of the ‘pro-car lobby’.

I - and many others - believe these traffic filters will increase total emissions and road congestion - albeit not in the city centre, but it will cause chaos on the ring road and remaining arterial roads. People who need to access the city centre - and do so by car at the moment - will continue to drive - a more heavily polluting, circuitous route. Tourists and shoppers with a preference to drive will drive to a more amenable city, further away. The choice facing would-be visitors is not Oxford or nothing, but Oxford or numerous other beautiful towns and cities in the county and surrounding area. Ones that are easier, quicker and cheaper to access.

I appreciate that many of you believe that this scheme will have a positive impact. Great. But what if you’re wrong.

I have asked officers multiple times to clarify how they will measure both the failure and success of this scheme, if it goes ahead. The response has been “that it will be monitored ongoing”, which is not good enough when livelihoods are at stake. It is arrogant and totally irresponsible to be so cavalier. If any version of this scheme goes ahead, I urge the council to explicitly, precisely lay out quantitative measures of failure and success, so that the scheme may be removed if the worst happens.

The 18 months that ETROs like this are allowed to run is more than enough time to cause irreparable damage to independent businesses in the city centre. Councillors, you are responsible for people’s livelihoods. You must define failure and success before any scheme like this is implemented. A thriving independent business community is an important part of what makes Oxford special - without it, the city is nothing more than a museum, lined with identikit national chains.

It is appalling that no funds whatsoever have been planned to support local businesses that prove to be negatively affected by the introduction of the scheme if it goes ahead. I urge councillors, if this scheme does go ahead, to rectify this.

To be clear though, this is not the most reasonable solution to reducing car use and rush hour traffic. Which of course needs addressing. But a congestion charge must be reconsidered. Charges and hours of use could be increased over time if need be, but this gentler approach would at least reduce the possibility of chaos on implementation and irreparable damage to city centre businesses.

The additional concessions recently proposed are confusing, random, and honestly laughable. Any scheme controlling access to a city must be simple to understand, and this is not that. This is a ‘fair and equitable’ scheme, this is a sledgehammer solution that will devastate viable businesses and the heart of the city.

I urge councillors to have the humility - and bravery - to step back from this precipice and abandon these plans.

The Oxford High Street Association absolutely agrees with the primary aims of traffic filters (bus gates); to assist Oxford’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. However, we believe there are a number of preferable alternatives. I personally also speak as a keen cyclist, one who has lived and cycled in Oxford, London and between for more than 10 years, always using cycling and public transport to commute. There are many alternatives to what is being proposed. These proposals are apparently intended to encourage cycling, yet would have no positive impact on cycling safety, perception of safety or uptake. Money is being misspent on actions that would increase total emissions, increase congestion on the ring road and remaining arterial roads into the city centre, and be incredibly damaging to local businesses, tradesmen, rural local residents, residents with complex needs and caregivers, amongst others. Assertions have been made that the move would “ensure that road users can look forward to faster bus services, reduced congestion in the centre of Oxford, and more road space for cyclists travelling across the city.” This despite the fact that bus services are currently running in fine time, there is negligible congestion (and crucially no telling when any meaningful congestion levels may return, given the effect of the pandemic on working habits) and the fact that road space per se is in no way the highest priority measure when considering cycling safety and perception of safety. The city’s cycling infrastructure in the city is actually very poor, considering how many people already cycle through the city, but this is what council funds should be spent on improving, not on bus gates. Encourage people to cycle by making cycling more attractive, not by blocking other means.

Discriminatory proposals: taxis are exempt from the proposals and so would be able to drive with impunity through affected streets. As such, any financially able resident or visitor would be far less affected by the proposals’ implementation than those on lower incomes. It has been suggested that local residents may be afforded permits, yet this still discriminates against rural Oxfordshire residents, especially those on lower incomes, who might just as reasonably need to get into the city centre but cannot afford to live there (or indeed choose not to for any number of reasons) and as such be given permits. That is not fair. Essential journeys made by people with complex needs, caregivers, the elderly and those who have difficulty walking, those who have MS, chronic fatigue, autism, immuno-suppressing conditions requiring more care to be taken in the current climate to avoid public transport etc. without such freedom will also be made more difficult, if not impossible by the introduction of bus gates. It is wholly inappropriate to introduce such damaging measures without far more extensive, meaningful consultation.

Irreparably damaging for local businesses: these proposals would also be damaging to already decimated footfall levels for local businesses. Many would-be visitors to Oxford might quite reasonably decide to travel to a more car-friendly city or town centre instead, rather than use public transport (whether out of covid-related concern or otherwise) or take a circuitous route via the ring road to travel into Oxford’s city centre. All modes of travel into and around any city centre at a time like this should be encouraged, to help support local businesses. 

Safe cycling should be positively encouraged by other means: there are many measures that could be implemented without negatively impacting those who need to make journeys across the city centre by car:

Improve the existing infrastructure first! Repaint the current lanes, resurface where necessary and where possible segregate them. Extend them beyond the ring road limits ideally but at least to the various Park and Rides. What has been done in recent weeks at Magdalen Bridge is an appalling example of how not to refresh infrastructure. The cycle lanes have been widened on both sides such that it is now the case that two buses cannot pass one another without both encroaching into their side’s cycle lane. A cyclist should be able to reasonably assume that cycle lanes are just that: lanes for bicycles alone. Especially with an average of some 860 bikes an hour, 14 a minute, crossing Magdalen Bridge in non-covid times, I cannot see how such a situation isn’t likely to result in a terrible accident. These need to be reconsidered.

Fix poor planning: there are a number of cases in Oxford of urban planning poorly designed, implemented or both: the Centrica office; the redevelopment of Templars Square shopping centre in Cowley; a new 3,300-home neighbourhood called Great Western Park, now under construction at Didcot; and the new Westgate shopping centre. All failures of planning policy for cyclists. Fix these first! 

Encourage cycling uptake in the city centre

Provide subsidised cycling proficiency lessons for any Oxfordshire resident wanting them!

Help lower-income families and individuals to buy bikes and necessary accessories with grants, not just loan schemes like Cycle to Work.

Help the public believe that bike theft will actually be taken seriously. Punish bike theft more severely to lessen fear in this regard. 

Subsidise electric bikes for elderly and less able people: Headington hill isn’t something I’d want to face 50 years from now without a little help.

Work with logistics providers to make Exchanging Places training mandatory for all HGV drivers coming into Oxford to reduce road traffic accidents. Perhaps even work with university and local communities to create something similar on smart phones for cyclists.

Introduce harsher penalties for cars parking in bike lanes.

Slow speeds on roads: even down to 15/20mph where necessary in the city centre.

Introduce more bike parking! With some 24,000 students at the University alone, there is a huge need for more parking to be made more consistently available across the city centre. There is no purpose built parking along the High Street for example. It would not be hard to implement.

Improve journeys where cycling provides the ‘last mile’ solution.

Provide far more space on trains for bikes. At the moment, provision is minimal and ticket-booking apps do not allow you to make bike reservations. 

Provide not just more bike parking, but safer bike parking at Park and Rides and around town. 

Provide secure lockers at Park and Ride sites for bikes that users intend to leave longer than 24 hours.

Improve cycling infrastructure from all Park and Rides, making it more similar to the brilliant route down Marston Ferry Road. I have no doubt that doing so could see more schools enjoy increased numbers of children cycling, their parents gladly dropping them off, knowing they’ll be safe.

And if congestion does return to the city centre?

A congestion charge between certain hours would surely be fairer than a total ban. You could charge all vehicles travelling 7:30-9am say, and again 5-6:30pm, with a reduced (or no) charge for electric vehicles. This would encourage delivery vehicles, local residents and visitors who aren’t constrained by the time of day to travel at cheaper, less congested times, but still give them the option of travelling in peak times if necessary. Doctors, caregivers and so on could still be provided exemptions.

PS. people keep mentioning the city of Ghent as a comparator for who barring cars from the city centre can work. To those, I would say it is an inappropriate comparison, especially in the midst of a pandemic: Oxford does not have a single, consistent and coherent tram offering across the city centre, it is not flat and it does not have brilliant cycling infrastructure. That is what we need to introduce first, before any moves that make travel by car harder at a time like this. 

Dear Robert Jenrick,

Please intervene to stop the implementation of economically and environmentally damaging, discriminatory ‘bus gates’ in Oxford.

I write to you on behalf of the Oxford High Street Association, a group of businesses and colleges based on the High Street and side streets of Oxford’s historic city centre. Oxford City Council is seeking to introduce a number of ‘bus gates’ (that is, barriers prohibiting the free passage of the vast majority of vehicles) at key points around the city centre. The proposals are apparently intended to encourage cycling, yet would have no positive impact on cycling safety, perception of safety or uptake. Money is being misspent on actions that would increase total emissions, increase congestion on the ring road and remaining arterial roads into the city centre, and be incredibly damaging to local businesses, tradesmen, rural local residents, residents with complex needs and caregivers, amongst others. We are seeking your help in blocking their implementation.

The council asserts that the move would “ensure that road users can look forward to faster bus services, reduced congestion in the centre of Oxford, and more road space for cyclists travelling across the city.” This despite the fact that bus services are currently running in fine time, there is negligible congestion (and crucially no telling when any meaningful congestion levels may return, given the effect of the pandemic on working habits) and the fact that road space per se is in no way the highest priority measure when considering cycling safety and perception of safety. The city’s cycling infrastructure in the city is certainly very poor but this is what your government’s well-intended funding should be spent on improving, not on bus gates. 

Discriminatory proposals

As well as buses, taxis are exempt from the proposals and so would be able to drive with impunity through affected streets. As such, any financially able resident or visitor would be far less affected by the proposals’ implementation. The council has suggested some permits may be introduced to local residents (though no details have been provided), yet this still discriminates against rural Oxfordshire residents, especially those on lower incomes, who might just as reasonably need to get into the city centre but cannot afford to live there (or indeed choose not to for any other number of reasons). That is not fair. Perhaps even more crucially, essential journeys made by people with complex needs, caregivers, the elderly and those who have difficulty walking, those who have MS, chronic fatigue, autism, immuno-suppressing conditions requiring more care to be taken in the current climate to avoid public transport etc. without such freedom will also be made more difficult, if not impossible by the introduction of bus gates. It is wholly inappropriate for the city council to propose such damaging measures without meaningful supporting data (they have negligible amounts) or consultation (to which they finally acquiesced for less than two weeks, after outcry from the public. Minimal effort was made to ensure key stakeholders were informed and engaged.

Irreparably damaging for local businesses 

Crucially for city centre businesses, these proposals would be damaging to already decimated footfall levels. (My family’s business for example, Hoyle’s of Oxford, has seen footfall drop by 70% YoY since reopening in July.) On learning of the bus gates’ implementation, many would-be visitors to Oxford might quite reasonably decide to travel to a more car-friendly city or town centre instead, rather than use public transport (whether out of covid-related concern or otherwise) or take a circuitous route via the ring road to travel into Oxford’s city centre. All modes of travel into and around any city centre at a time like this should be encouraged, to help support local businesses. And it is being done elsewhere: your university town Cambridge for example is slashing city council car park charges to £1 an hour for three months to encourage shoppers to visit the city safely by car. Oxford should be doing similarly. 

Should these nominally ‘temporary’ bus gate proposals be implemented, they are allowed 18 months to run before analysis is required. Such a period of time with such punitive measures in place would be more than enough to cause irreparable damage to city businesses, including permanent closure. 

Safe cycling should be positively encouraged by other means

There are a huge number of measures that could be implemented instead to improve and encourage cycling, thereby improving air quality and public health, without negatively impacting those who need to make journeys within and across the city centre by car: the National Infrastructure’s report ‘Running Out of Road: Investing in Cycling in Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford’ provides many brilliant recommendations. As an addendum to this letter I have included in more detail examples of such suggestions, as well as quotes from concerned local businesses and individuals.

Your authority could help overturn the proposals

We would be incredibly grateful if you could intercede with Oxford City and County Councils on the behalf of ourselves and all others likely to be affected. We have no doubt your authority would add great weight to the argument against the bus gates’ implementation and would be invaluable in effecting positive change. 

I would be delighted to discuss the matter in more detail at your convenience, should you be interested in taking this further. Many thanks for your time already in reading.

Yours sincerely, 

Emily Scaysbrook

Oxford High Street Association

oxfordhsa.co.uk

Comments from concerned local businesses and individuals:

“I live in North Summertown and use a dentist in Iffley. I am 84 years old. The journey by car takes me about 20 minutes but if I have to use the ring road it would take about 40 minutes, causing more pollution. Otherwise I need two buses and quite a walk along the High Street. And living not too far from the ring road, the thought of increased traffic noise and pollution is an appalling thought.”

“These additional bus gates would be an additional blow to our own city centre businesses, which are already struggling, experiencing an 75% reduction in trade compared to pre Covid 19.”

“These bus gates will just divert traffic to longer journeys, using more fuel and taking more time, and leading to massive congestion and pollution on the remaining entry roads into the city”

“What about those that are disabled, or have chronic or genetic conditions, and can’t walk, cycle, or use a bus? Driving is the only option for me, like many others that live in Oxford.”

“It concerns me to hear that [Oxford City Council is] using Government funds meant for improving cycle lanes and walkways for [these] proposals and using this as an excuse to fast track without proper public consultation.”

“Now is not the time to stop would-be visitors who are fearful of or advised against taking public transport and without means to pay for a taxi from coming into the city centre. You are punishing lower-income visitors, vulnerable visitors and fearful visitors. Cambridge are introducing £1/hour council parking to encourage visitors. Why is Oxford City Council not doing this?”

Alternative council actions that would encourage cycling without negative impact

Improving journeys where cycling provides the ‘last mile’ solution

• Provide far more space on trains for bikes. As it stands there is normally space for four bikes on the train from Paddington to Oxford for example. On the train from Marylebone to Oxford there is normally one space to lean one or two bikes, but no reservations may be made and there is no way of keeping bikes separate from one another (which one would ideally want to do for the sake of minimising contact of personal goods).

• Provide not just more bike parking, but safer bike parking at Park and Rides and around town. Provide secure lockers at Park and Ride sites for bikes that users intend to leave longer than 24 hours before returning. (I have yet to find an insurance company that will insure a bike for longer than 24 hours if left outside the home.)

Encourage cycling uptake in the city centre

• Provide subsidised cycling proficiency lessons for any Oxfordshire resident wanting them, not just NHS workers and students, who are currently the only ones able to benefit from free lessons through the Broken Spoke bike co-op. Many London boroughs do this as you’re no doubt aware - indeed I took up the offer when I first moved to the capital, and I found it immensely useful and feel much safer on the roads as a result.

• Help lower-income families and individuals to buy bikes and necessary accessories. The bike to work (loan) scheme is great, but insufficient. Grants could be provided instead, as an additional feature of Universal Credit perhaps or similar.

• I have a lot of anecdotal evidence that some families don’t use bikes in town because they fear they’ll be stolen. Punish bike theft more severely to lessen this fear. Help the public believe that bike theft will be taken seriously.

• Perhaps you could provide subsidised electric bikes for elderly people? Headington hill isn’t something I’d want to face 50 years from now without a little help. This isn’t the Netherlands and the roads aren’t all flat, easy rides. 

• Exchanging Places training: you could work with logistics providers to make this mandatory for all HGV drivers coming into Oxford to reduce road traffic accidents. Perhaps you could even work with the university and local community initiatives to create virtual reality lessons to create something similar on smart phones for cyclists.

• Many cyclists in Oxford don’t help themselves. Change this by introducing harsher penalties for cyclists without lights. 

• Many cars don’t appreciate cyclists’ needs either. Change this by introducing harsher penalties for cars parking in bike lanes.

• Slow speeds on roads: even down to 15/20mph in areas that you are looking to improve safety, encourage cycling etc.

• It may be simple, but introduce more bike parking! With some 24,000 students at the University alone, many of whom regularly cycle, there is a huge need for more parking. There is no purpose built parking along the High Street for example. It would not be hard to implement and would be a great easy win.

Fix poor planning

There are a number of cases in Oxford of urban planning poorly designed or implemented, detailed in the Running Out of Road Report. It notes that Oxford City Council’s core strategy, its main statement of planning policy, says it “will seek to ensure the transport impact of any new development is fully mitigated... planning permission will only be granted for development that prioritises access by walking, cycling and public transport.” Yet it does not happen in practice. This surely needs addressing:

• The Centrica office opened only in 2013, part of Oxford Business Park, has been described by council officers as “chronic” and a “case study in bad planning” with almost no provisions made for bikes or public transport. Surely this should be addressed. 

• Nearby, the redevelopment of Templars Square shopping centre in Cowley received planning permission in July this year even though it includes almost no provision for cyclists or public transport users. Could permission be retracted until provision is made?

• Outside the city, in the South Oxfordshire district, a new 3,300-home neighbourhood called Great Western Park is now under construction at Didcot. There are no facilities for cycling, beyond a few racks. Even though the development is little more than a mile from the town’s mainline railway station, it is not possible to walk or cycle directly to it. Could cycling infrastructure be introduced before construction is complete, to encourage good cycling behaviours for new residents from day one?

• In central Oxford, the new Westgate shopping centre is a textbook example of the failure of planning policy. It was opened with virtually none of the new cycle parking spaces promised by the developers (and which were a condition of planning permission.) Eight months on, cycle parking is still not what was promised, much is inconveniently located and some is actually charged for. Perhaps you could take up the issue with the developers, since cycle parking was a condition of permission granted?

Weak links in infrastructure

Cycling infrastructure is only as good as its weakest link and there are very many places in Oxford where the infrastructure is terrible. Improve the existing infrastructure, repaint the current lanes, resurface where necessary and where possible segregate them. Extend them beyond the ring road limits ideally but at least to the various Park and Rides. What has been done in recent weeks at Magdalen Bridge is an appalling example of how not to refresh infrastructure. The cycle lanes have been widened on both sides such that it is now the case that two buses cannot pass one another without both encroaching into their side’s cycle lane. A cyclist should be able to reasonably assume that cycle lanes are just that: lanes for bicycles alone. Especially with an average of some 860 bikes an hour, 14 a minute, crossing Magdalen Bridge (the county council’s figures as provided in Running out of road), I cannot see how such a situation isn’t likely to result in a terrible accident. These extended lanes need to be reconsidered.

And if congestion does return to the city centre?

A congestion charge between certain hours would surely be fairer than a total ban. You could charge all vehicles travelling 7:30-9am say, and again 5-6:30pm, with a reduced (or no) charge for electric vehicles. This would encourage delivery vehicles, local residents and visitors who aren’t constrained by the time of day to travel at cheaper, less congested times of day, but still give them the option of travelling in peak times if necessary. You could use this reduced congestion period to make the more extensive infrastructure improvements:

• Making cycling infrastructure from all Park and Rides into town far wider and more impactful - more similar to the brilliant cycle route down the Marston Ferry Road. I have no doubt that doing so could see other city centre schools enjoy increased levels of children cycling to school, their parents having dropped them off at the Park and Ride.