What specific measures did Oxfordshire County Council propose in its 2040 traffic filter pilots?
Executive summary
Oxfordshire County Council proposed a package of targeted "traffic filter" measures to trial on six Oxford roads aimed at cutting through-traffic, speeding up buses and improving conditions for walking and cycling as part of its Central Oxfordshire Travel Plan and wider 2040 transport ambitions [1] [2]. The core measures include experimental traffic regulation orders (ETROs) to close selected streets to private through‑traffic at set times using camera enforcement, a structured permit regime for residents and some exemptions, and a defined trial evaluation period before any permanent change [1] [3] [4].
1. What the filters are and where they would be tried
The council proposed installing six traffic filters — effectively closures to private through‑traffic on six named roads across the city — as a trial to reduce congestion and reprioritise space for buses, pedestrians and cycles; the scheme was approved by the county cabinet and forms the headline element of the Central Oxfordshire Travel Plan [1] [5]. The trial was set to proceed under an experimental traffic regulation order, enabling on‑the‑ground testing and adjustments before any permanent adoption [1].
2. How they would operate and be enforced
Filters would operate at defined times (with some locations initially operating peak‑time only, for example Hollow Way and Marston Ferry Road proposed for 7am–9am and 3pm–6pm Monday–Saturday) and be enforced by cameras using number‑plate recognition in the same way as existing camera enforcement on High Street [6] [3]. The council positions the technology as standard congestion management practice used elsewhere in UK cities [3].
3. Permits, exemptions and resident concessions
The proposals include a permit system: Oxford residents and some adjacent area residents would receive resident day passes (changes after consultation included 25‑day passes for Oxfordshire residents outside the permit zone and a 100‑day pass for certain neighbouring residential areas such as Shotover Hill and near Barton), with limits per person and household; exemptions and special allowances for buses, cycles and certain commercial vehicles were also proposed, and HGV/van exemptions were considered in technical work [6] [4] [7] [8]. The council emphasised vehicle exemptions for active and public transport to support modal shift [1] [2].
4. Trial length, evaluation and links to broader measures
The ETRO approach means the trial would run for a minimum of six months and could extend up to 18 months while the council gathers data and feedback to finalise exemptions, timings and locations before deciding on permanence [1] [4]. The filters form one element of a wider strategy that includes a zero emission zone (ZEZ) pilot in the city centre and plans to expand low‑emission measures and broader 2040 transport goals such as cutting car trips and making sustainable modes the "natural first choice" [7] [2].
5. Consultation, changes after feedback and the political context
The council ran a public consultation that drew thousands of responses (5,700 responses plus hundreds of emails) and says the feedback led to concrete changes in the scheme design such as adjusted operating times and revised permit allowances; cabinet members debated the plan amid both support from active‑travel groups and visible public protest, and the package carried a multi‑party cabinet majority though not unanimous support [9] [6] [5] [10]. The council also published technical modelling and impact assessments to back the proposals [11] [4].
6. Misinfo, contested narratives and costs
From the outset the proposals attracted misinformation conflating traffic filters with "15‑minute city" confinement narratives; both county and city councils explicitly rejected claims that filters would prevent residents driving anywhere, stressing instead rerouting at operating times and the separate nature of the Local Plan’s 15‑minute neighbourhood objective [12] [3] [9]. The council allocated a multi‑million pound budget for the scheme, reported at around £6.5m in coverage of the cabinet decision [2].