Contact: Stuart Reynolds, ext 6048

With the concurrence of the Chairman under Section 100(B) (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972 this matter is included on the agenda to facilitate the County Council's response to the proposed legal submission to be made by ABP with regard to transportation infrastructure proposals for the proposed Dibden Bay development.

1. Summary

1.1 Members may be aware of the current Dibden Terminal Inquiry which is due to conclude in December after running for a year. The final stages of this inquiry will consider submissions by Associated British Ports (ABP) and the local councils on the conditions and legal agreements considered necessary to accompany any grant of consent by the Secretary of State. This report sets out the current position on the transportation topic and draws to Members' attention the likely contributions and works that may be offered by ABP.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to advise Members of the issues. The Inquiry process has heard much evidence on the transport issues and many of the detailed mitigation measures have been agreed through this process. In particular, the improvement proposals for the A326 were referred to the Leader of the County Council, the Executive Member for Environment and the former County Planning Officer and County Surveyor to approve. The outstanding issues at this time are the level of contributions that ABP will agree for various transport measures.

2. Background

2.1 The County Council's former Planning and Transportation Committee considered its position regarding the ABP proposals for development at Dibden Bay in February 2001, at which time any urgent matters arising regarding transport issues were delegated to Chief Officers and leading Members. The transport topic was considered at the Inquiry during June 2002. Mr S Reynolds and rail consultants presented written evidence on transport issues on behalf of Hampshire County Council and New Forest District Council. This evidence sought to bring to the Inspector' s attention the potential shortcomings of ABP's transport proposals in respect of the proposed Terminal development, and raise objection to these elements of ABP's case.

2.2 During the course of the Inquiry ABP improved its offer of transport mitigation measures for the A326 and by so doing overcame the technical objection to these improvements. This was agreed at the Inquiry and is not a current topic for decision. A number of other issues presented to the Inquiry were either resolved prior to the Inquiry or objections remained extant and subject to satisfactory resolution.

2.3 In the normal course of events, in dealing with a planning application, the applicant would agree to enter into legal agreements with the local authorities to provide works or contributions to mitigate the impact of the development. The outline of such an agreement would then be presented to the County Council's the Executive Member for Environment for permission to enter into the agreement with the applicant. The fact that these current applications for a new Terminal at Dibden have been subject to a Public Local Inquiry changes the ability of the County Council to decide on what appropriate measures are to be included in any legal agreements.

2.4 Towards the end of the Inquiry (currently scheduled for the end of November/December 2002) the Inspector will hear submissions on what measures ABP proposes to mitigate the impact of the development. The transport measures proposed will subsequently be included in legal agreements (generally Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and Sections 278 and 38 of the Highways Act). At the time of writing ABP had not clarified the extent of the measures it is likely to offer in mitigation. However, as there can be no guarantee of when this information will be available, it is necessary at this stage, to meet the Inquiry timetable, to bring to Members' attention details of likely proposals. If further details emerge they will be presented at the meeting.

2.5 Should no agreement be reached on transport and other matters between the local authorities and ABP, it is likely that ABP will submit a unilateral undertaking for the measures it considers appropriate. The Inspector will consider these and, if accepted by the Secretary of State, the County Council will have no alternative but to accept the findings. It is therefore important that the Inquiry is made aware of the County Council's views prior to the close of the Inquiry.

3. Outstanding Transport Issues

3.1 Issues that have arisen during the course of the consideration of this development can be divided into those where a resolution has been agreed at the Inquiry and those for which there remains disagreement with an issue, either in principle or on the level of mitigation/contribution offered. For issues agreed at the Inquiry, no further evidence will be accepted by the Inquiry. However, where disagreement exists the highway authority's position will need to be supported and the Inspector will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State on his conclusions. Each issue has been flagged to show the level of agreement reached, as follows:

- details agreed at Inquiry are highlighted *

- agreed in principle but details under discussion **

- no agreement with ABP ***

(i) A326 improvement *;

(ii) Port access road **;

(iii) impact on the New Forest and Marchwood **;

(iv) Totton, Hounsdown and Marchwood level crossings *;

(v) public transport infrastructure **;

(vi) Port Travel Plan **;

(vii) Freight Quality Partnership *;

(viii) lorry routeing *;

(ix) Port closure contingency plan **;

(x) signing strategy *; and

(xi) rail modal share ***.

A326 Improvement

3.2 ABP's proposals, presented to the Inquiry, indicated that the intended widening and junction improvements satisfied policy, capacity and safety concerns from the technical viewpoint.

3.3 ABP therefore now proposes that the A326 between the Terminal access and the A326 spur be upgraded to a wide single carriageway of 13 metres with appropriate signalisation of junctions. These proposals are indicated on Plan Nos 1025/066 to 1025/072 to be displayed at the meeting. The marking out of the carriageway is for the highway authority to determine but could be as a wide single carriageway with 1 metre hard strips either side and a 1 metre central hatching. Alternatively, the road could be marked partially or wholly as a four-lane carriageway comprising 0.35 metre edge markings, a 3 metre and 2.75 metre lane in each direction and a 0.8 metre central hatching. This would ensure the road at the junctions channelled traffic into four lanes, rather than the ad-hoc arrangement often seen on wide single carriageways.

3.4 Although ABP presented proposals at the Inquiry, it is considered appropriate to review the junction measures at Twiggs Lane and Staplewood. The staggered crossroads in the ABP proposal is not as efficient as the current Local Plan proposal, which sought to provide a standard crossroads solution. This latter solution provides added benefits for traffic on the A326 and for the Infant School on Twiggs Lane. The Local Plan solution is not within ABP's gift, but through negotiation with ABP it has been agreed that, should the local authorities reach a way forward to provide the Local Plan scheme, ABP would be prepared to amend its proposals. This may require further planning consent and financial input from the County Council but at this stage this is being explored.

3.5 At Staplewood Lane junction a further staggered crossroads is proposed. Traffic levels are light on the side roads and consideration is being given to reducing the impact of this junction on the A326. This may require some restricted traffic movements but the improvement would reduce delay on the A326.

3.6 North of the A35 the widening of the A326 varies, as presented to the Inquiry and shown on the plans. Of particular note is the widening of the railway bridge over the London to Bournemouth line. This will also improve the currently narrow footway over the bridge. The signalisation of the junctions from Foxhills to Michigan Way was demonstrated at the Inquiry to be satisfactory.

3.7 The timing of these improvements is linked to the Terminal Development but it is desirable that the Stage 1 improvements from the Terminal Access to A326 spur are completed prior to the Terminal coming into operation. The Stage 2 works north of the A35 should be completed within two years of the Terminal coming into operation.

3.8 The section of A326 south of the A326 spur is currently in need of structural repair. As part of the negotiations on road improvements, agreement has been reached that ABP should bear the full costs of the structural repairs for this road at the time of improvement, in lieu of any commuted sum for maintenance. It is also intended that the road will be surfaced with low-noise surfacing materials.

Terminal Access Road

3.9 The Terminal access road is vital for the operation of the Terminal and must be in place prior to the Terminal coming into operation. For reasons other than transport the road will need to be in place at the start of the development construction phase.

3.10 Agreement elsewhere on the Inquiry has sought to ensure that most materials for the site are brought in by water, thus reducing the construction impact on the A326. However, as the site is poorly accessed by road it is likely that the access road will be provided at an early stage.

3.11 The access road provides two functions, in that its prime use is to support the Terminal and its secondary use is to provide access to a proposed park-and-ride site. Consideration has been given to adopting the section of access road between the Terminal and the park-and-ride site. On the basis that the park-and-ride site is by no means certain, it is considered that if the road is adopted ABP should pay the full costs of future maintenance on this road, to which ABP has, in principle, agreed.

Impact on the New Forest and Marchwood

3.12 ABP submitted draft proposals for mitigating the impact of the Terminal on the New Forest and Marchwood (see Appendix 1). The principles of the proposal are that over a period of nine years the levels of traffic are monitored and assessed against agreed criteria. Should the criteria be exceeded a contribution towards mitigation measures is triggered. At the time of writing ABP limited its responsibility to £150,000 for Marchwood and £50,000 for the New Forest. Officers are considering this proposal and will be seeking a more substantial sum as, on the face of the measures required, the contributions appear low.

Impact on Totton, Marchwood and Hounsdown Level Crossings

3.13 ABP stated that it will fund improvements at Marchwood and Hounsdown, which are related to improved pedestrian facilities as presented to the Inquiry. The cost of these works is likely to be modest. New barriers will also be provided as part of the rail improvements.

3.14 ABP has been requested to provide a contribution to the Totton town centre study. The value of the study proposals is expected to be many millions of pounds, and includes provision for a new station and pedestrian/cycle railway crossings. Options for improved railway crossings range from improving existing footbridges to new bridges in different locations from the existing. ABP considers that, as it adds only 25% to the gate closure times, it should pay no more than 25% of a footbridge cost and has offered £475,000 to date. As funding for the study implementation has not yet been secured, the contribution would not enable an improved pedestrian/cycle bridge to be provided. It is considered that the ABP offer should be rejected and officers should negotiate for a more substantial sum that reflects the ability to deliver.

Public Transport Proposals

3.15 ABP presented a package of measures to the Inquiry, which includes:

(i) a new park-and-ride site;

(ii) an express bus service to/from Southampton;

(iii) improved existing local services;

(iv) a new bus service to/from the Hythe Pier; and

(v) enhancement of bus services in Southampton.

The costs of these services were presented by ABP and accepted by Hampshire County Council and New Forest District Council.

3.16 At the Inquiry the Inspector intimated that it was unlikely the park-and-ride site would feature in his recommendations for approval. Subsequently, ABP offered to commute the cost of the park-and-ride site to a Public Transport Strategy for the Southampton and Totton and Waterside Transport Strategy area. To date the value of this commuted contribution has not been agreed, but in the event that the park-and-ride provision is not agreed by the Secretary of State, or its likely implementation does not come forward within a reasonable timescale, it is considered that the monies should be allocated to improving the local public transport services, including possible future South Hampshire Rapid Transit proposals, Hythe Ferry or other local bus services.

3.17 Southampton City Council is still seeking a higher contribution to bus services in the city. Although this does not directly affect agreement with the County Council, ABP will be reluctant to conclude any arrangements until discussions with the City Council are completed or exhausted.

Port Travel Plan

3.18 In an attempt to achieve greater sustainability, ABP has been encouraged to develop a travel plan for the Terminal, which will encourage staff to use more sustainable modes of transport. ABP submitted a travel plan to the County Council for assessment against former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, now Department for Transport (DfT), criteria. Following discussions a satisfactory travel plan has now been developed, and ABP has agreed to a number of actions to ensure its effective delivery (see Appendix 2). However, discussions are continuing to seek further improvements to this plan to ensure its effective implementation. The Travel Plan will be included in the Section 106 agreement for the development.

Freight Quality Partnership

3.19 A key issue for the local and wider community is the behaviour of freight vehicles in the Waterside and adjoining area. There is little direct action that can be taken to control use and behaviour of such vehicles but, as a result of pressure from County Council officers, ABP agreed to set up a Freight Quality Partnership (FQP) and enlisted the assistance of the Freight Transport Association (FTA). A FQP for Dibden and the Waterside has now been formed and terms of reference are shortly to be agreed and registered with the DfT. The aim of this FQP is to seek industry control and management of operators and to work with the community to develop best practice. It is hoped that, once set up, other freight operators will join the FQP and assist in reducing the adverse impact of their traffic. Notably, Esso at Fawley is being encouraged to join the FQP.

Lorry Routeing

3.20 The FQP, whilst providing a voluntary code of conduct, cannot enforce the management of vehicles. A lorry routeing strategy, while also ultimately unenforceable, would assist in the regulation of vehicle movements.

3.21 Concern was expressed at the Inquiry about the potential for Heavy Goods Vehicles to use unsuitable roads. In particular, the route from Cadnam to Fordingbridge across the New Forest (B3078), the A3057 between Romsey and Andover and local roads in the area of the Terminal are of concern. Although the potential for lorries to use unsuitable routes is low, the impact of even small numbers can be significant. It is therefore proposed that the lorry routeing strategy contains restraints for lorries to limit their use to mainly the county primary routes, motorways and trunk roads.

3.22 By discussion through the FQP it is hoped that much of the `problem' can be regulated by the industry. However, if offending vehicles continually abuse some routes more draconian measures will need to be considered. It should be noted, however, that such measures might be difficult to develop and enforce. This is linked to paragraph 3.12 above.

Port Closure Contingency Plan

3.23 The Port Closure Contingency Plan (PCCP) is an emergency measure that it is predicted will be rarely used but is essential for the safe operation of the Terminal. It is intended for use when highway access to the Terminal is unavailable and traffic may be turned away. To avoid congestion and safety concerns by inconsiderate parking, the Plan provides measures for warning drivers to avoid the area and contingency emergency parking, if necessary.

3.24 Although a plan was presented to the Inquiry, the Police and Highways Agency have now indicated they wish it amended, due to emerging circumstances elsewhere, related to the Human Rights Act. ABP is currently considering amendments, which are likely to include emergency parking measures on the A3090 between the A27 and A36, along a lightly trafficked section of dual carriageway.

3.25 The measures are unlikely to be used with any degree of frequency and, in the event of a long-term port closure, the Terminal operators would communicate this to transport operators and traffic would either be diverted to other ports or held at its origin.

Signing Strategy

3.26 Most of the signing for the Terminal will be on the motorways and trunk roads, which are the responsibility of the Highways Agency. The County Council will seek to ensure that any agreement respects local road signing and provides adequate advice to drivers to avoid local roads.

Rail Modal Share

3.27 The applicant has stated that 35% of container traffic could be carried by rail. In evidence the County Council and New Forest District Council stated their scepticism that this level of mode share would be achieved. During the course of the Inquiry submissions have been made to seek to secure measures that will allow a minimum mode share of just 15% to be achieved, this being ABP's lower band forecast use. It is considered important that pressure is maintained to ensure appropriate rail capacity is available to achieve the intended rail freight proportions, or that the development is limited should the modal targets not be met, in order to maximise sustainability and encourage rail development.

4. Other Transport-Related Issues

4.1 Throughout the Inquiry several topics were considered that have a relation to transport issues. These have not been included in this report, which focuses on the transport content of possible future Highways and Planning legal agreements. There are, however, a number of issues pertinent to the transport function, and the following short commentary refers to such matters.

5. Landscaping

5.1 ABP has not provided detailed plans of the highway landscaping for the A326 or Terminal access road. Outline proposals were presented at the Inquiry but the detail of these measures will need further discussion with ABP, as the interaction between landscaping highway drainage has yet to be resolved. Clearly the final proposals for landscaping will have an effect on the assessment of the visual impact of the development and mitigation works.

6. Land Drainage

6.1 Drainage from the land and highways affected by the development proposals has not been presented in detail to the Inquiry. The detailed consideration of such issues is crucial to the design of the A326 works and the Terminal access. Aside from highway design issues, the drainage proposals will have an impact on landscaping and the local ecology. As details emerge submissions will be made to the Inquiry or the appropriate powers post-Inquiry.

7. Noise

7.1 The noise issue is a large topic covering the development and its access routes (road/rail). There are no significant road noise issues, other than surfacing, that have received mitigation measures in this process, and the rail noise issues will be pursued as part of the mitigation measures for the rail access.

8. Rights of Way

8.1 The County Council's Rights of Way Officer has worked closely with other officers in the County and District Councils to ensure coordination of the appropriate footpaths and highways/rail issues. In general there are no conflicting issues with the transport topic.

9. Marchwood Infant School

9.1 Concern was raised in the Inquiry about the safety of staff and pupils in the grounds of the school adjacent to the A326, which under ABP's proposals is moved closer to the school. At present there is only a hedge between the school grounds and the A326, and the fear expressed was related to potential accidents in which vehicles left the road and crashed into the school grounds. ABP offered, as part of the highway design, to erect a safety barrier alongside the A326 in this vicinity. This would give the normal level of protection from the road and would not affect the school grounds. ABP also stated that it would be willing to build an earth bund to protect the school, but this would have to be on school grounds and would need to be subject to the school obtaining the necessary permissions and land. This is a negotiable point that will be considered as part of the design of the A326 scheme.

10. Comments

10.1 Due to the Inquiry process and the belated identification of many of the transport infrastructure issues, there is not time for full consideration of the proposed legal agreement issues and consultation on what is acceptable to the local authorities. The intention of this report is to make all those concerned at county, district and parish level aware of the likely content of legal agreements in relation to the Dibden Terminal Development.

10.2 The value of the highways-related transport infrastructure proposals suggested by ABP, including contributions, is likely to be in excess of £18 million. The decision on the acceptability of the offer of works and mitigation measures/contributions is therefore a key decision for the County Council as highway authority. It is intended that a report on the Terminal development legal agreement issues will be submitted through the relevant County Council process for consideration in the near future.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Members will no doubt be disappointed at the lack of time and detailed consideration they are being offered in pursuance of this matter. This is entirely due to the pace of ABP supplying information and the timing of the Inquiry. If the County Council does not respond to the proposed legal agreement submissions to be made by ABP, it will present them as a unilateral undertaking and the County Council may find itself in a position in which it has no influence over the content of future legal agreements relating to transport. It is therefore vitally important that consideration is given at this time prior to the full details of the `package' of measures being available from ABP.

Recommendations

1. That the content of this report be noted.

2. That a further report be presented to the next available Cabinet and full County Council meetings.

7508/SJR

APPENDIX 1

DRAFT PROPOSALS BY ABP

DIBDEN TERMINAL

SPECIFICATION FOR TRAFFIC MONITORING IN MARCHWOOD/NEW FOREST

1. The purpose of the traffic monitoring exercise is to establish whether:

· there is an increase in through traffic in Marchwood village or the New Forest which can be directly attributed to increased congestion on the A326 (because the A326 highway improvements are not sufficient to accommodate the increase in traffic as a consequence of the Terminal).

· any commercial traffic associated with Dibden Terminal is routeing through Marchwood village or through the New Forest.

2. The proposed methodology to establish the above is as follows:

i) Continuous monitor of a) A326 background traffic (Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) south of Terminal Access) and b) Terminal traffic (ATC on Terminal Access Road).

ii) One week ATCs on the local roads every three years. If traffic growth on any of the local roads is greater than background traffic growth on the A326 (survey a) above) then this will be the trigger for more detailed surveys.

iii) Detailed surveys - identify any Terminal commercial traffic (LGV and HGV) on local roads (vehicle registration match with Terminal gate records) and identify increase in congestion on A326 (undertake journey time surveys).

iv) The need for mitigating measures will be identified from the surveys in iii) above.

3. Surveys to be carried out and analysed at ABP's expense (the County Council can undertake surveys if it prefers, but ABP has right to contract alternative survey contractor if County Council costs not competitive).

4. Timescale. Surveys to be carried out:

· Prior to Terminal and A326 highway improvement construction

· Three years after Terminal first becomes operational

· Six years after Terminal first becomes operational

· Nine years after Terminal first becomes operational

The exact timing of surveys to be agreed between the County Council, NFDC and ABP. The frequency of surveys can be modified, but there will be a maximum of four survey periods.

5. Surveys will be undertaken at the following locations. These are indicated on the attached Figure (to be produced).

A326 and Terminal

1. Terminal Access Road

2. A326 (immediately south of Terminal Access Road)

Marchwood

(any through traffic in Marchwood must travel on one of the following three roads, therefore no need to consider any other locations)

3. Hythe Road (at Pilgrims Inn)

4. Twiggs Lane (north of A326)

5. Staplewood Lane (between A326 and Park Ave.)

New Forest

(any through traffic south of A35 must travel on one of the following roads)

6. B3054 (immediately west of A326)

7. C97 (immediately west of A326)

8. C173 Twiggs Lane (south west of the A326)

9. Staplewood Lane (south west of A326)

Other Routes of Concern

10. C63 (between Ashurst and Foxhills rbt)

11. Monkton Lane

12. Michigan Way

13. B3079 (north of M27J1)

Growth Monitoring

6. Sites 1. and 2. will be continuous ATC monitors. Site 2. will be best achieved by the relocation of the existing County Council ATC site south of Twiggs Lane. Site 1. will provide details on Terminal traffic variation throughout the year.

7. At sites 3. to 13. inclusive one week ATCs will be carried out every three years, timing of which to be agreed between the County Council/NFDC/ABP.

8. Traffic growth at Sites 3. to 13. will be determined by comparison against the Pre-Terminal traffic flows. The percentage growth on each route will then be compared against traffic growth at Site 2 for the same week and over the same time period. If percentage growth on any of the routes is more than 1% (as a whole number) greater than the growth at Site 2., then detailed surveys will be carried out on those routes.

Detailed Surveys

9. For any route identified from survey sites 3. to 13. as requiring detailed survey the following one day survey will be undertaken:

· the vehicle registration number for all commercial vehicles will be recorded for the time period 0700 - 1900 hours.

· vehicle registration numbers will be recorded of all commercial vehicles passing through the Terminal gates (inbound and outbound). This will allow identification of any of these vehicles which route via any of the survey sites 3. to 13. and thus whether Terminal traffic is routeing via inappropriate routes.

· A326 peak period journey time surveys will be undertaken for the following time periods:

0700 - 0900 hours

1600 - 1800 hours

These will be undertaken to the same specification as the 2001 surveys contained in the Land Access Joint Data Group Agreed Statement (Appendix LA/2.20).

10. The journey time surveys will indicate whether or not there is a deterioration of conditions on the A326, which is likely to lead to drivers seeking other routes, ie routeing through Marchwood and the New Forest.

11. Data for each survey year will be presented in a specified format to allow direct comparisons to be made.

Trigger Points for Mitigation Measures

12. Terminal Commercial Traffic. The identification of any such traffic from the methodology specified above will be taken as a trigger point for mitigation.

13. Through Traffic. If traffic growth on the local roads is greater than growth on the A326 then this will be taken to be at least partly attributable to an increase in through traffic if there is a significant increase in journey times on the A326. Significant increase in journey times will be defined as follows:

An increase over the measured Pre-Terminal average journey times of greater than :

· 20% after 3 years

· 30% after 6 years

· 40% after 9 years

· or a proportional percentage increase for any other survey year

Implementation of Mitigating Measures

14. If any of the trigger points are reached then the County Council will determine the appropriate mitigating measures to be put in place (subject to the reasonable identification of specific problems), and will design, promote and implement them. The costs of this work will be funded by ABP, up to an agreed capped sum.

15. The type of measures which the County Council can reasonably implement with contributions from ABP are as follows:

Demand management measures

Contributions towards investigation and implementation of demand management measures to support the New Forest Transportation Strategy including:

· Introduction of a supplement on the proposed National Heavy Commercial Vehicles toll charge scheme for lorries that use non- principal roads in the Forest, including the above

· Introduction of Quiet Lanes and review of speed limits

· Area-wide lorry ban for the Forest north of the A31 (south of A31 already dealt with)

Within Marchwood it could include:

· Traffic Regulation Orders

· Traffic Calming

· Safety measures

· Noise reduction measures

· Road-space reallocation

· Weight restrictions

· Speed reduction measures

· Encouragement of sustainable transport measures

Measures to mitigate the effects of additional traffic

Contributions to a more environmentally sensitive highway maintenance regime to ensure that problems like verge overrunning and road edge degradation do not have an adverse impact on the margins immediately adjacent to the carriageway.

Measures to encourage greater use of sustainable transport

· Contributions towards South Hampshire Rapid Transit

· Contributions towards Bus Quality Partnership and those Rural Transport Schemes that are not car-based

· Contributions towards cycle route proposals identified in the Totton and Waterside Transportation Strategy

Payment/Funding Arrangements

16. ABP shall contribute towards the future implementation of mitigation measures if required. These monies can be spent at any time between the first Port-Terminal survey and one year following the final Post-Terminal survey.

· Within Marchwood: up to £150,000

· Within New Forest: up to £50,000

17. ABP will cover the cost of the monitoring traffic surveys.

APPENDIX 2

DRAFT WORKPLACE TRAVEL PLAN

PROPOSALS BY ABP

DIBDEN TERMINAL TRAVEL PLAN - ACTION LIST

The following summarises all the Actions listed in the Dibden Terminal Travel Plan which would be subject to financial penalty by the County Council should the Action fail to be completed. Evidence will have to be made available that the Actions have been undertaken, and the site and its facilities will have to be made available for inspection.

Infrastructure and Associated Commitments

· `Principal Operators' to make provision for a boat operation to serve the main shift change patterns, including office-based staff.

· Construct a bus turn round facility and waiting room at the Park-and-Ride site (irrespective of whether the Park-and-Ride proceeds) - and payment of a maintenance fee if the facility is adopted by the County Council.

· `Principal Operators' to provide and operate an appropriate bus link around the Terminal, using low emission vehicles.

· Provide bus stops, shelters and the display of up-to-date bus timetable information at a number of key locations within the Terminal site.

· Facilitate and provide the funding for the necessary infrastructure within the Terminal and at the Park-and-Ride site to introduce Real Time Information, linked with the ROMANSE system.

· Construct and maintain the proposed pedestrian/cycle route network as indicated in Figure 3 of the Travel Plan.

· Provide covered and lit cycle parking to be located within 20 metres of the key workplaces - up to 150 spaces by Terminal completion, but number to be increased if demand necessitates.

· Provide and maintain toilets with shower facilities and room for lockers at key locations around the Terminal.

· Provide and maintain 20 pool bicycles

· Provide covered and lit motorcycle parking spaces immediately adjacent to main workplaces - up to 30 spaces by Terminal completion, but number to be increased if demand necessitates.

· Provide Intranet site accessible to all.

· Provide on-site catering, vending machines and cash machine.

· `Principal Operators' to provide and maintain pool cars.

· Provide bus service enhancements in both the Waterside and Southampton in accordance with Section 106 objectives.

Management and Marketing Plan

· Annual staff travel survey to be undertaken. Proof to be available on demand that the survey has been undertaken to the agreed specification (timescale, prize draw, sample rate, validation). The survey to be analysed and reported by an external body within two months of the survey being undertaken. Copy of report to be provided to the County Council.

· Visitor travel survey to be undertaken. Proof to be available on demand that such a survey has been undertaken.

· Produce Travel Plan promotional material (to specification set out in Travel Plan report) to be sent to all workforce members. Brochure to include ABP supporting statement and to be signed by Port Manager. Copy to be sent to the County Council.

· Hold introductory seminars within 3 months of company opening on site - the County Council to be given prior notice and invitation to attend.

· Keeping staff informed. Travel survey results and proposed new measures to be advertised to workforce - as a minimum this must be done by newsletter (copy to be sent to the County Council), and posted on the Intranet (available for County Council inspection).

· Intranet site must provide a feedback facility for workforce to make comment.

· A promotional day to be held annually - the County Council to be given prior notice and invitation to attend.

· Set up an employee database of all staff (home postcode, working hours, mode of travel).

· Produce and distribute information on bus routes, bus stops and timetable information, pedestrian and cycle routes and cycle parking facilities. Copy to be sent to the County Council.

· Produce and send out a 'How to Find Us' map for visitors - car to be last listed mode. Copy to be sent to the County Council.

· Set up, promote (annually) and maintain a Car Share database on the Intranet - to be operational within one year of the Terminal becoming operational. Workforce will be encouraged to log in their own details, but a form will be provided as an alternative. Preferential parking locations (closest to bus pick up point) to be assigned to car sharers. Employers to make clear company policy on providing alternative arrangements for car sharers in emergency (copy to be sent to the County Council).

· Within two years of Terminal becoming operational, Cycle and Motorcycle User Groups to be set up and all interested employees invited to their meetings. Minutes to be sent to the County Council.

· Site Travel Plan Co-ordinator to be appointed to administer and manage the above. Name and contact details to be made available to the County Council.

· Every company who leases land or buildings to appoint its own Company Co-ordinator who will attend quarterly meetings with the Site Co-ordinator (Minutes to be made available to the County Council). Name and contact details to be made available to the County Council.

· Site Co-ordinator to attend Steering Group meetings to be chaired by senior ABP management every six months. Minutes (excluding financial details) to be made available to the County Council.

· The following monitoring surveys to be undertaken annually and reported to the County Council:

- Survey of those entering Site, by mode.

- Level of usage of cycle/motorcycle stands to determine demand.

- Car park surveys to establish car usage by employees and overall car parking demands.

- Bus operators to be requested to provide feedback to establish demand for local bus services.

- Surveys of bus passengers boarding and alighting at Dibden Park and Ride/Bus Interchange and at Southampton Port.

- Obtain car share matchings from the database.

- Other staff feedback, eg comments on Intranet site.

- Survey of visitor car park use.

- Records of deliveries made by boat/road.

- Survey of any off site parking which might take place. (Action likely to be transferred to the County Council - ABP to fund).

· The performance of the Plan in meeting individual targets will be assessed and reported annually. This report will also identify any barriers to change and any key areas which can be targeted for future modal shift.

· Within three months of surveys being undertaken, the Site Co-ordinator will call a Dibden Travel Plan Working Group meeting to report the Plan performance externally.

· The Site Co-ordinator will, through the County Council, liase will local community groups.