APPENDIX 3

Contact: Nick Richardson, ext 5429

1. Summary

1.1 The A30 between Basingstoke town centre and M3 Junction 7 forms a key corridor within the Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST). A wide range of options has been considered for this corridor and feasibility work has proposed a number of coordinated improvements. This would help create a more balanced approach in favour of reducing the dominance of traffic and meeting wider objectives.

1.2 Following the completion of some initial schemes, a number of proposals are recommended for the main A30 route and the likely priorities for implementation are set out.

2. Objectives of the Proposals

2.1 The proposed measures are intended to meet a range of wider objectives, including:

(i) improving social inclusion, eg access to employment, shops, etc;

(ii) supporting safer routes to schools;

(iii) reducing community severance;

(iv) supporting Line 1 Quality Partnership;

(v) providing comprehensive, area-wide improvements; and

(vi) linking with land use/development proposals.

2.2 It is intended that the measures proposed for the A30 will complement other initiatives within the BEST programme, including the South West Quadrant pedestrian and cycle improvements, Sainsbury to West Ham cycle route, Hatch Warren to town centre cycle route, safer routes to school, etc.

2.3 Public consultation on the concept proposed for the A30 corridor was undertaken in October and November 2000. The outcome which indicated overall support for the proposed approach was reported to Members on 14 February 2001. Panel Members and local County Council and Borough Council Members attended a briefing session on 15 July 2002 at which the specific proposals were outlined and discussion invited. Additional issues raised by local Members have been considered. Following determination of preferred schemes, further design work will be undertaken for consideration of individual schemes in due course. Public consultation will be arranged on individual schemes within the implementation programme.

2.4 The A30 is an alternative route to the M3 in the event that the latter is temporarily closed. This has been taken into account in considering possible options.

3. Measures Introduced to Date

3.1 A number of measures have been introduced along the A30 corridor to date:

(i) Traffic Regulation Order to reduce traffic speeds;

(ii) Toucan crossing at Homesteads Road;

(iii) traffic calming between Winchester Road roundabout and Winton Square; and

(iv) additional new white lining between Wallop Drive and Brighton Hill roundabout to assist in speed reduction.

4. Outline of Feasibility Study and Proposed Schemes

4.1 The County Council's term consultants have undertaken a review of all options for links and junctions between M3 Junction 7 and Winchester Road roundabout. These have been considered in a coordinated way and previous feasibility work undertaken has been taken into account. Options have been considered and recommendations made which are summarised in the table below and considered in more detail.

Summary of recommended schemes for A30 south west corridor

Southwood Corner (A30/A30 Junction)

4.2 The junction has a poor safety record due to high vehicle speeds and relatively remote location. The options considered include:

(i) do nothing;

(ii) remove right turn;

(iii) traffic signal junction; and

(iv) replacement of existing junction with roundabout.

4.3 It is proposed that either traffic signals be installed or a roundabout constructed. However, the costs differ significantly with a signal scheme costing around £450,000 (to include speed reduction measures on the approaches) and a roundabout costing around £1.5 million due to land take and earthworks.

Southwood Corner to Wallop Drive Roundabout

4.4 The existing dual carriageway has been narrowed to a single lane on the approach to Beggarwood Lane and this principle could be applied to longer sections of the route. Options considered include:

(i) do nothing;

(ii) combined cycle and/or footpath;

(iii) inbound or outbound priority lane;

(iv) inbound and outbound priority lanes; and

(v) central priority lane.

4.5 The scheme would incorporate a cycleway/footway on the inbound carriageway by extending the single lane section towards Southwood Corner. This would cost around £50,000 and help reduce traffic speeds and create a safer route for cyclists.

4.6 Priority measures for buses serving Beggarwood Lane could be provided although the number of buses that could benefit is limited and the provision of a bus lane between Beggarwood Lane and Wallop Drive roundabout would not be cost-effective. The roundabout is expected to operate within capacity in the future and buses would not experience delays. Similarly, selective vehicle detection at the Beggarwood Lane signals would not be cost-effective, given that the junction has been designed to accommodate future growth.

Wallop Drive Roundabout

4.7 Options considered include:

(i) do nothing;

(ii) traffic signals on roundabout; and

(iii) replacement of roundabout with traffic signal junction.

4.8 It is proposed that no change is required to the existing roundabout on the basis that it functions well with the exception of evening peak demand from Wallop Drive which would not be overcome with the installation of traffic signals.

4.9 While the possibility of bus only access from the roundabout to Kempshott Lane will not be pursued in the absence of a commitment to regular bus services via this route, there is scope for cycle only access which it is proposed to take forward.

Wallop Drive Roundabout to Kempshott Roundabout

4.10 White lining has been introduced to narrow the carriageway on this section of the A30. Options considered include:

(i) do nothing;

(ii) ribbed lining;

(iii) on-carriageway cycle facility;

(iv) inbound priority lane;

(v) inbound and outbound priority lanes; and

(vi) central priority lane.

4.11 Ribbed lining would discourage vehicles from moving to the nearside to allow other vehicles to overtake, thus creating a hazardous situation requiring the current lining scheme. However, the road space available could be used for a third lane for use as a priority lane at a cost of £200,000.

Kempshott Roundabout

4.12 The roundabout is exceptionally large which creates problems of vehicle speeds and limited access opportunities from minor arms at peak times, together with a lack of cycle and pedestrian provision. Options considered include:

(i) do nothing;

(ii) circulatory white lining;

(iii) traffic signals on roundabout;

(iv) replacement of roundabout with `hamburger' roundabout; and

(v) replacement of roundabout with traffic signal junction.

4.13 Substantial alterations would be costly and would have a limited effect in slowing traffic, particularly inbound. It is proposed that traffic signals be installed on the existing roundabout to include crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and could cost around £250,000. Such a scheme would reduce community severance and provide new links, for example to local schools, complementing the Homesteads Road toucan crossing.

Kempshott Roundabout to Brighton Hill Roundabout

4.14 A separate footpath parallels the road and its conversion for use by cyclists and pedestrians is being pursued. The carriageway itself is wide enough to accommodate an additional lane and the possibility of widening the footway is being investigated. Options considered include:

(i) do nothing;

(ii) combined cycle and/or footpath;

(iii) inbound priority lane;

(iv) inbound and outbound priority lanes; and

(v) central priority lane.

4.15 Traffic speeds have been reduced on this section with the introduction of a 40 miles per hour speed limit. The creation of a priority lane could reinforce speed reductions by effectively narrowing the carriageway for other traffic at a cost of around £350,000. A priority lane could be linked with traffic signals at Brighton Hill roundabout (see below). Alternative arrangements have been considered with a priority lane in the centre of the carriageway with tidal flow or construction of an additional outbound priority lane. However, both these options are costly (£1.3 million and £1.2 million respectively) and are unlikely to be justifiable compared with an inbound priority lane on the existing carriageway.

4.16 The possibility of an additional link for buses between the A30 and Pack Lane (inbound) has been considered. This would provide more direct access to the retail units in Pack Lane and on Brighton Hill roundabout but would be of benefit to a small number of buses in one direction only. However, new traffic signal arrangements at Brighton Hill roundabout would provide adequate capacity and negate the advantages of an alternative link via Pack Lane. Furthermore, the creation of a new junction would complicate the implementation of a priority lane.

4.17 The provision of an at grade crossing to replace the existing subway would need to take account of appropriate visibility and other considerations and is not recommended. However, the footway (north side) between the Homesteads Road toucan crossing and Brighton Hill roundabout could be widened.

Brighton Hill Roundabout

4.18 Brighton Hill roundabout presents the greatest challenge on the route in that it is a very large roundabout with six arms, has significant safety issues and an impact on community severance. A range of options has been considered:

(i) do nothing;

(ii) circulatory white lining;

(iii) traffic signals on roundabout;

(iv) replacement of roundabout with traffic signal junction;

(v) revised roundabout; and

(vi) dumb-bell roundabouts.

4.19 The options investigated aim to reduce conflicting traffic movements, consider at grade crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and the possibility of reducing the number of arms onto the roundabout. Dumb-bell roundabouts (two smaller roundabouts in close proximity) were not considered to be effective in that there would be conflicting movements, no provision for walking and cycling, detrimental effects on traffic flows and stacking. A revised roundabout (making a rounder shape and separating out the Western Way link) offers some potential but would be costly (around £1.1 million). Complete replacement of the roundabout with a traffic signal crossroads (with access to Brighton Way from a separate junction) would release land but would require major reconstruction at considerable cost (£1.7 million).

4.20 In addition, detailed analysis of traffic flows and origin/destination surveys indicates that a revised roundabout, a traffic signal junction to replace the existing roundabout or traffic signals on the existing roundabout are possible improvements over the existing unsatisfactory arrangements. On the basis of cost, the latter option offers the best value solution and could be linked with a priority lane on the Kempshott approach. The inclusion of crossing facilities for pedestrians would provide an alternative to the subways while cyclists could be accommodated, linking communities with employment areas and supporting safer routes to schools. A bus lane in Brighton Way could also be included. However, the conflicts between A30 traffic and the access from Western Way may need to be reviewed.

Brighton Hill Roundabout to Winchester Road Roundabout

4.21 The section of dual carriageway is heavily used at peak times. Options considered include:

(i) do nothing;

(ii) combined cycle and/or footpath;

(iii) inbound priority lane;

(iv) inbound and outbound priority lane; and

(v) central priority lane.

4.22 A walking and cycling route parallel to the carriageway is already in place but could be improved. The creation of a priority lane in either direction is hampered by the traffic signal junction serving the retail park and other side road accesses. The nearside lanes could be converted to priority lanes but the displaced traffic would be substantial and would cause problems at Brighton Hill roundabout and Winchester Road roundabout at peak times. An alternative layout with a central (tidal) priority lane would be costly (around £1.2 million). Therefore it is suggested that priority lanes on this section of the route are not implemented initially, taking into account other considerations of access to this section of the route.

Winchester Road Roundabout

4.23 The roundabout was designed with slip roads to and from Ringway with embankments for a flyover. Ringway South (on the southern approach to the roundabout) remains as a single carriageway with no plans for conversion to dual while Ringway West was built as dual carriageway. Options considered include:

(i) do nothing;

(ii) circulatory white lining;

(iii) traffic signals on roundabout; and

(iv) replacement of roundabout with traffic signal junction.

4.24 Complete recasting of the junction with traffic signal crossroads would be costly (around £1.2 million) and would create traffic flow difficulties with complex turning movements. It is proposed to install traffic signals on the existing roundabout, together with improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.

4.25 Traffic approaching the roundabout from Wella Road adds to congestion at peak times and this could be regulated by linked signal control. While the earthworks are in place for a flyover for Ringway traffic, the cost of providing it would be considerable (around £4 million) and does not meet BEST objectives. The single carriageway approach on Ringway South would have to be re-evaluated.

5. Priority Lanes

5.1 The concept of priority lanes has been considered. The two existing examples in Leeds and South Gloucestershire on the approach to Bristol have shown how significant benefits can be achieved given the right circumstances, both for users of the `2+' lane and non-users when taken as a part of a `whole route' approach.

5.2 The introduction of an inbound priority lane from Wallop Drive roundabout to Brighton Hill roundabout is expected to be beneficial in reallocating existing road space. Initial analysis suggests that the allocation of the nearside lane or lanes of the Brighton Hill roundabout to Winchester Road roundabout section of the A30 could be more difficult to implement. However, between Wallop Drive roundabout and Brighton Hill roundabout an inbound priority lane, linked with traffic signal installations, would offer significant benefits in terms of vehicle occupancy. It is suggested therefore that priority lanes could be developed for the Wallop Drive roundabout-Kempshott roundabout-Brighton Hill roundabout section of the route, subject to further detailed survey and analysis work.

6. Priorities for Implementation

6.1 Some schemes are capable of being implemented sooner than others. The introduction of traffic signals would be expected to take around 12 to 18 months for design, consultation, reporting, and procedural and contractual arrangements prior to construction on site. Schemes requiring substantial engineering or earthworks would be expected to take longer. However, initial design work has been undertaken and can be progressed without delay. On this basis alterations to Brighton Hill roundabout are likely to take place after other schemes are under way. Once the form of schemes for each location is determined, the necessary steps towards implementation can proceed.

6.2 It is proposed that the schemes be taken forward in the following order:

(i) A30/A30 Southwood Corner and cycleway between Southwood Corner and Beggarwood Lane;

(ii) Kempshott Lane cycle link from Wallop Drive roundabout;

(iii) Kempshott roundabout;

(iv) Winchester Road roundabout;

(v) inbound priority lane Wallop Drive roundabout-Kempshott roundabout-Brighton Hill roundabout (subject to further evaluation); and

(vi) Brighton Hill roundabout.

6.3 Other elements of the strategy, such as improvements to walking and cycling routes, will be undertaken throughout the programme as appropriate. The role of priority lanes will be assessed if an inbound lane is included between Wallop Drive roundabout and Brighton Hill roundabout before a decision is made on the Brighton Hill roundabout to Winchester Road roundabout section of the route.

7. Conclusion

7.1 A series of proposals has been considered for the A30 south west corridor between Basingstoke town centre and M3 Junction 7. These have been assessed on a coordinated basis and schemes for implementation have been put forward. Schemes can be programmed for implementation according to the amount of design work required and funding availability. On completion the combined effect of the schemes will help meet the objectives set out in the agreed strategy for the A30 south west corridor.

Recommendation

That the Panel endorses the measures proposed for the A30 Basingstoke to M3 Junction 7 corridor.

7351/NR