Archived decisions

Contact: Jon Foley, ext 7559

1. Background

1.1 The need for a sub-regional study for South Hampshire has been recognised by the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) within Regional Planning Guidance Note 9 for the South East. The Strategic Joint Advisory Panel (JAP) resolved to support the preparation of this study to support the review of the County Structure Plan, and work is now underway.

1.2 The aim of the study is to inform and influence the development of a detailed land-use and transport strategy for the sub-region. It will be a background paper to the next review of the County Structure Plan. The study is therefore based on a methodology and information consistent with the county-wide review process.

2. Summary of Approach

2.1 The County Council, with partners, is currently involved in the `technical study' element of the work, looking at Housing Needs, Economic Needs, Transport and Environmental Issues. The purpose of this stage of the work is to look at the current situation (eg current use of the highway network), any forecasts available and finally to identify potential future constraints. Each district authority has also provided its aspirations for the area.

2.2 The transport element of the technical study is underway and a draft report "South Hampshire Study - Transport Stage 1 Data Collection" has been produced which contains detailed information on the state of the transport network in the South Hampshire study area. A second draft report "South Hampshire Study - Transport Stage 1 Evaluation" has also been prepared, which includes a preliminary assessment of alternative transport investment options in the area that need to be assessed as part of Stage 2 of the study.

2.3 The key findings of the data collection report are included as Appendix 1 and the outcomes as Appendix 2.

3. The Way Forward

3.1 The report "South Hampshire Study - Transport Stage 1 Evaluation" concludes that a coordinated approach to transport investment is likely to have the best chance of success.

3.2 The report also concludes that there is a need for wider partnerships to be established, which will coordinate transport planning and the investment programmes of each stakeholder in a way that gives added value to transport provision in South Hampshire. It proposes that potential ways of forming and managing such a partnership are investigated as part of the wider South Hampshire Study in testing various transport and land use scenarios.

3.3 A final report, summarising the outcomes of all the technical studies, will be produced and used to test a number of land use and transport scenarios in the South Hampshire area.

Recommendations

That the proposed approach set out in Section 3 of this report be noted.

6741/JF

APPENDIX 1

SOUTH HAMPSHIRE STUDY

TRANSPORT STAGE 1 DATA COLLECTION

SUMMARY

The following extract is a brief summary of the key facts and figures identified in the South Hampshire Study - Transport Stage 1 Data Collection Report.

Car Ownership

Within the study area there are 127 cars per 100 households as compared to a national average of 99 cars per 100 households.

Modal Split

Within South Hampshire 72% of all journeys are made by car, 17% are by public transport and 11% are either by cycle or on foot.

Road Network

Traffic growth in South Hampshire between 1990 and 2000 is almost 30%.

Traffic levels in excess of 100,000 vehicles per day are currently experienced on the motorway and trunk road network at the following locations:

· M3 (between junction 10 and the M27)

· M27 (between junctions 3 and 4)

· M27 (between junction 5 and 8)

· M27 (between junctions 11 and 12)

· A27T (between M27 and A3M)

In 2000 traffic flows on 40% of the Strategic Highway Network exceed the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) level. These are:

· M27 around Southampton

· M3 from its junction with the M27 north

· M27/A27 across the Portsmouth peninsula

· A32 on Gosport peninsula

· A326 at Marchwood

By 2020 it is forecast that traffic flows on 80% of the Strategic Highway Network will exceed the CRF level on:

· M3

· M27 junctions 1 to 12

· M271

· M275

· A3M (M27 to Hulbert Road)

· A3 (M27 to Cosham)

· A3 (Waterlooville Bypass)

· A27 (Burlesdon to Emsworth)

· A32 (M27 to Gosport)

· A35 Totton Bypass

· A36 (M27 to Ower)

· A326 (M27 to north of Totton)

· A326 (A35 to Holbury)

· A334 (M27 to A27)

· A2030

Freight

The Port of Southampton handles over 35 million tonnes of cargo per annum and 300,000 freight vehicles pass through the Port of Portsmouth each year.

Southampton Airport handles 0.6 million tonnes of cargo per annum.

The annual volumes of freight carried in South Hampshire measured at three key points are:

· 84 million tonnes at M3 south of Eastleigh

· 19 million tonnes at A3(M) north of Waterlooville

· 60 million tonnes at M27 between 8 and 9

Lorries account for over 10% of the total vehicle numbers on the M27 north of Southampton and on the southern section of the M3.

There are over 9 million tonnes of freight on the rail network every year.

There are currently 5,000 freight trains per annum from the freightliner terminal in Southampton carrying 6 million tonnes and approximately 1 million tonnes per annum from Fawley.

The Strategic Rail Authority has set a target of increasing rail freight by 80% from 2000 to 2010. An 80% increase in freight carried by rail on the southern M3 would equate to 4 million tonnes or approximately 7% of the current road freight level.

Passenger Rail Network

The key routes in the area, together with current patronage (based on all day both directions) are summarised below:

· up to 17,000 journeys are made on the Southampton to London line (via Eastleigh)

· up to 11,000 journeys are made on the line between the Portsmouth peninsular and London (via Havant)

· up to 8,500 journeys are made on the Portsmouth to Southampton line

· up to 6,500 journeys are made on the Southampton to Weymouth line

· up to 3,000 journeys are made on the Southampton to West Country line (via Salisbury)

Surveys undertaken in 1996 showed that on parts of the rail network trains operate up to 75% empty at certain times.

The capacity of the rail network in South Hampshire could be increased by up to 400% through the introduction of longer and more frequent trains.

Approximately 17% (160,000) of South Hampshire's population live within walking distance (800 metres) of a railway station.

Air Transport

The number of passengers travelling by air from Southampton International Airport increased by 60% between 1994/95 and 1999/00 from 500,000 to 800,000.

Passenger numbers are expected to reach 1 million during 2002.

Passenger capacity is 1.5 million.

Ferries

The number of passengers on services between Southampton and the Isle of Wight increased by 22% between 1995 and 2000 (from 2.1 million to 2.6 million), and on services between Southampton and Hythe there was an increase during the same period from 345,000 to 407,000 (18% increase).

Vehicular ferry traffic through the Port of Portsmouth (on both domestic and continental routes) increased by approximately 10% between 1995 and 1999 from 1.7 million per annum in 1995 to 1.9 million in 1999.

Passenger numbers on inter-continental services from Portsmouth grew by almost 7% to 3.4 million between 1995 and 1999 while passenger numbers on domestic services increased from 6.98 million in 1995 to 7.44 million in 2000 (6% increase).

Public Perceptions of Transport

The key reason people use their car in South Hampshire is because it is quicker than other modes. This was stated by 70% of respondents compared to a Hampshire average of 60%.

The second most common reason people gave for using the car in South Hampshire is because it is a convenient way of carrying passengers and goods. 40% were of this view compared to a Hampshire average of 30%.

In relation to the rail network local residents have identified journey times (36%), reliability (33%), train frequency (33%), ease of finding a seat (33%), ease of boarding/alighting (31%) and distance of station to house (31%) as either good or very good.

The poorest aspects of the rail network (based on people's perceptions) were fares (47% rating them as poor or very poor), cost of parking at station (32%), ease of parking at station (30%) and facilities at stations (28%).

In relation to the bus network local residents identified convenience of bus stop to home (55%) and ease of finding a seat (44%) as either good or very good.

The poorest aspects of the bus network (based on people's perceptions) were shelter/waiting facilities (39% rating them as poor or very poor), cost (33%) and service frequency (27%).

Views of the Business Community

Businesses are generally satisfied with the transport network. 76% consider the existing infrastructure to be good or very good for distribution.

68% of companies surveyed, across all business sectors, cite traffic congestion as the key transport issue for their business.

Road transport is the principal means of moving goods for most companies (73%). 13% of companies make use of air transport, 11% use the sea and 3% use rail as a means of transporting goods. 40% of survey respondents indicated that the main reason for choosing a particular mode of transport is the destination of the journey.

80% of respondents would not pay for improvements which would save time in distribution.

84% of respondents would not consider paying for or contributing to measures to reduce commuting or business journey times.

72% of businesses do not offer any staff travel schemes or incentives.

APPENDIX 2

SOUTH HAMPSHIRE STUDY

TRANSPORT STAGE 1 EVALUATION

SUMMARY

The following extract is the outcome of the South Hampshire Study - Transport Stage 1 Evaluation Report.

11. OUTCOME OF THE EVALUATION

11.1 The evaluation of the data collection exercise undertaken as part of Stage 1 of the South Hampshire Study has helped to confirm previously known trends, identify new ones and pointed to a number of key issues that need to be taken forward for investigation under Stage 2 of the study. The statistics reveal an extremely worrying future transport scenario for South Hampshire, which if not properly addressed will have a significant impact on the economy, environment and social well-being of those who live, visit and work in the area. If current trends continue as expected then the ability of the transport network to cater for necessary travel, to get people to work and school and allow them to undertake leisure pursuits, will be severely jeopardised over the next decade.

11.2 In general terms, the transport problems facing South Hampshire are significant. Road traffic growth is in excess of national averages and is forecast to continue to rise steadily. Peak period congestion is now the norm in most areas and is beginning to spread to other times of the day and substantial development pressures will exacerbate this situation. Parts of the railway system are substantially underused while other parts of the rail network suffer from severe capacity problems. Bus Services are subject to frequent complaints regarding a range of issues from reliability to accessibility. A fundamental new approach to the planning, delivery and operation of transport is needed to tackle the problems on the scale currently envisaged.

11.3 The evaluation has indicated that there are broadly two main thrusts to any new approach - the `Integrated Management of Transport' supported by a `Holistic Investment Programme' designed to deliver sustainable transport solutions that, in part, will also help to encourage behavioural change. Such an approach will not be without its problems or be easy to deliver. However, we need to begin to investigate these issues and Stage 2 of the South Hampshire Study provides the opportunity to initiate this process.

Integrated Management of Transport

11.4 At present the responsibility for the operation of public transport (road, rail, sea and air) is mainly in private ownership, the planning of which tends to be undertaken in isolation from each other, with priority given to returns for their respective shareholders. In addition, the responsibility for motorways and trunk roads lies with the Highways Agency. Local transport authorities are charged, in the main, with the responsibility of looking after local roads and investing in some bus services, but only for socially necessary reasons. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions set national targets, and the policy guidance for transport and the Government Office for the South East recommend priorities for investment. Moreover, the South East England Regional Assembly determines the Regional Transport Strategy and the South East England Development Agency deals with transport and the economy. In summary, the management of transportation in South Hampshire is fragmented.

11.5 Given the above scenario, there remains considerable concern over whether or not the £1.6 billion potential investment programme up to 2011, identified during the Stage 1 evaluation, will be delivered in a coordinated manner. There is also concern that the end result may not be of greater value to the community than the summation of its individual elements. This issue of added value must be resolved if wider policy objectives for South Hampshire, including those for the economy and the environment, are to be supported and achieved.

11.6 With this in mind, there is clearly a need for the three strategic authorities and the other stakeholders engaged in transport to work more closely together, with the aim of helping to secure a high quality sustainable transport system that is able to support the wider social, environmental and economic needs of the area. This will require new and stronger partnerships to be established that may well lead to innovative new management arrangements for transport planning, scheme delivery and the operation of services, in order to best meet the needs of South Hampshire. It is recommended that the potential for such arrangements be explored as part of the next stage of the study.

11.7 What is also evident from the assessments undertaken as part of the evaluation is that there is no panacea for the transport problems facing South Hampshire. For example, it is recognised that public transport improvements alone will not provide a solution, given the scale of the task (doubling rail patronage would only reduce car use by 3%). The management of road, rail, sea and air travel needs to be better coordinated, have common strategic aims and objectives and operate in a complementary way to each other. In particular, the next stage of the study should look at the role of Hampshire's ports and airport and their relationship with other facilities along the south coast from Dorset to Kent, in order to see how best they can operate in harmony.

Holistic Investment Programme

11.8 Previous research has suggested that Local Transport Plan investment programmes will only bring about 24% of the change needed to achieve a sustainable transport solution and that land use decisions will in turn only help meet around 5% of the change. Importantly, lifestyle and behavioural change can account for approximately 30% of the shift needed for sustainable travel, and therefore must be addressed as part of any future transport strategy. Therefore, the "holistic" approach to investment must recognise the role of Government (central and local), transport operators and providers, local businesses and the general public in helping to meet wider transport objectives.

11.9 Given the nature and extent of the transport problems, the evaluation exercise has shown that more of the same in terms of infrastructure and services is unlikely to provide an appropriate transport solution that also meets strategic social, economic and environmental objectives. It would be neither feasible, nor desirable, to try and build our way out of these problems. New and more innovative solutions need to be investigated, both in terms of infrastructure and services, together with better coordination of investment across all modes. These must be supported by a range of non-transport or `soft policy' measures that begin to address the lifestyle and behavioural issues. With this in mind, some of the key options worthy of further consideration as part of Stage 2 of the Study are outlined below.

11.10 SOUTH HAMPSHIRE RAPID TRANSIT (SHRT):

A great deal of work has already been undertaken over the years in order to develop the SHRT concept and system and this now needs to be taken forward as part of Stage 2 of the study. In brief, the aim is to provide a mass transit system capable of carrying up to 75 million passengers a year using state of the art rolling stock and vehicles, new information technology, full integration between modes, integrated ticketing, corporate image and identity and an innovative management arrangement to insure coherent investment and development. It is envisaged that at one end of the spectrum SHRT will comprise light rapid transit on segregated and shared track (road and rail) and at the other end it will be supported by high quality bus services. In between, there are opportunities to introduce guided bus on shared and segregated track, enhanced heavy rail services, the reopening of passenger rail services, articulated buses and bus priority.

11.11 `SMARTCITY' CONCEPT:

This would involve extending the SMARTCITY initiative being pioneered in Southampton throughout South Hampshire. The intention would be to make greater use of technology, mainly through smartcards, in order to ease the payment for travel and other personal transactions, as well as enabling better access to information relating to a wide range of facilities. In a transport context, the aim would be to encourage greater use of public transport, minimise unnecessary travel and improve the efficiency of personal transport (cycling and car).

11.12 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS (ITS):

ITS technology is capable of managing the entire road network in South Hampshire and is able to provide real-time information for all potential travellers. Among the issues that could be explored as part of the next stage are variable speed controls on the Strategic Road Network, access controls triggered by pollution targets or capacity constraints, bus and lorry priority lane controls and one stop shop travel information centres. The overall aim would be to optimise the use of the network and help improve its efficiency.

11.13 PARKING POLICY:

Parking policy can be the most effective traffic management control, but clearly its implementation would need to be sensitive to other policy objectives. The level of provision, existing and new, together with a pricing strategy would need to be reviewed in the light of the forecast growth in traffic. Concessions and incentives designed to encourage the use of low, or zero, emission vehicles and car sharing could also be examined. In addition, the role of strategic park-and-ride designed to intercept traffic entering South Hampshire could also play an important part in the overall strategy. It is recognised that the implementation of parking or any other demand management measures would need careful planning and coordination to avoid local problems related to competition and equity.

11.14 `SOFT' POLICIES:

Through HEADSTART and the EU project INPHORMM a great deal of experience has been gained in dealing with `soft' policies that address hearts and minds rather than infrastructure and services. There is considerable evidence to show that this type of approach can be extremely effective in helping to encourage behavioural and attitudinal change and bring about modal shift. A range of initiatives could be explored to target different sectors of the community using a variety of techniques and support materials. School travel and staff travel plans would form part of this approach.

11.15 REALLOCATION OF ROAD SPACE:

One of the most crucial issues over the coming decade could be the question of who should have priority on the roads. Under this notion, opportunities could be explored to give more space to pedestrians, buses and cyclists in town centres, at the expense of cars. The potential for high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus priority and freight only lanes on appropriate routes could also be investigated, together with the role of technology in reallocating road space at various times of the day.

11.16 CHARGING FOR THE USE OF ROAD SPACE:

This is obviously a sensitive issue, but it would be misguided not to explore the potential for road pricing and workplace parking levies in South Hampshire in the time period of the County Structure Plan Review in view of forecast levels of traffic growth. At present not enough information is available to determine whether or not charging would be appropriate for the area. Stage 2 could investigate this matter further to gain a better understanding of the social and technical issues surrounding this matter to see what its potential impacts could be.

11.17 The above issues are some of the potential key components that could form part of a fundamentally new transport strategy for South Hampshire. To take these initiatives forward to Stage 2 of the study will require a concerted effort by all three strategic authorities. It is also proposed that this work should include consultation with potential key players like Government agencies, operators, business and other groups on their views regarding a more broadly-based approach to future transport investment and management. However, this work will be essential to help ensure that the adverse effects of spiralling traffic congestion and inefficiencies in the transport system do not compromise the social, environmental and economic viability of the area.